Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 4

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incorrectly listed for vfd in December, the article is an advertisment--nixie 23:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see anything notable. Zzyzx11 01:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, advert. Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad for a non-notable computer company. This looks to be a combination of an ad and a recruiting piece. Double-whammy, double-delete! --Deathphoenix 16:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Stellertony the Bookcrosser 09:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. Nobody suggested Dewford Town as the merge target, but that's where I intend to merge it. dbenbenn | talk 22:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A fictional gym instructor who trains Pokémon. Is this in line with Jimbo's goal of creating a resource that is the sum of all human knowledge, or is this yet another example of non-encyclopedic "Pokécruft"? You decide. GRider\^talk 00:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 00:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Jimbo's goal. Kappa 01:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If the content for all of the Hoenn Gym Leaders are that short, may I suggest merging them into Hoenn. Zzyzx11 01:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if there's a good place to merge it to, else keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:28, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In general have we not kept Pokémon and the human characters in the series? Also what is up with emphasizing fictional gym instructor? If there are there any real Pokémon gym instructors I would like to see some articles about them. (Actually I do not like the Pokémon at all, but I accept that that universe is large and that articles about characters in it should stay.) Sjakkalle 09:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you Sjakkalle for your comments. In your own opinion, is there no bar of notability which needs to be met within the make believe universe of Pokémon for purposes of inclusion? How is it that articles about characters in a fictional universe should be kept, while real characters and locations here on Earth are not? GRider\^talk 17:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That argument makes very little sense. Fictional characters become part of culture, and are usually not comparible with their real-world contemporaries on notability grounds. Mario is a fictional plumber, and is notable as a part of culture, while no real-life plumbers are equally notable. Oliver Twist is a fictional street urchin, and I don't see a whole lot of real-life street urchins with articles. The point is that things are rarely any less notable due to being fictional. Brawly is apparently a gym teacher. Is Pokemon a work of great artistic triumph for the ages? Who cares? Thousands if not millions of people are familiar with this character, which puts him above most (all?) of the real-life gym teachers out there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:56, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
      • Just so I have this straight; you're asserting that a gym teacher from Pokémon is important above most (if not all) gym instructors in real life, while at the same time implying that my argument does not make sense? GRider\^talk 18:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Absolutely. Let's look at some facts (keep in mind I'm not a pokemon fan, but I do know a fair amount about video games) Brawly appears in a GB game Pokemon Ruby / Sapphire, which sold 4 million copies during their first six weeks on sale in Japan alone as well as the GBA FireRed/LeafGreen, which broke 1 million copies in its first 21 days of release in the USA. I can't find a single figure of how many of these games were sold total worldwide, but I'd say that 10 million would be a conservative estimate. I also am not sure whether he has appeared in other games. I'd assume so, but let's move on. He's also appeared on the Pokemon TV series, which is very, very popular. I found one ratings source saying 5 million viewers in the US. Assuming it's at least roughly as popular in Japan (a safe bet) that's a further 10 million exposures, to say nothing of the rest of the world, reruns, etc (oh, and he's also been made into a toy). By even the most conservative guesses, I'd say that at least 20 million people worldwide are familar with this character. Now, really, in all seriousness, how many real-life gym teachers can that be said about? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:51, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • I see it as indicative of systemic bias. If this were a character from an obscure sci-fi novel, we'd be falling all over ourselves to keep it. But a ludicrously popular cartoon, especially one of non-US origin, that has to go. I'm no Pokemon fan myself, but it seems pretty much impossible to deny that it's a major part of modern popular culture. On Google, for example, Pokemon gets about twice as many hits as "Mickey Mouse", "Charlie Brown", and "Bugs Bunny" combined! And that's not even counting Japanese-language references! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge/redirect. Even obscure characters from sci-fi novels get merged into single pages. (eg Minor characters from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) The same rule should apply to cartoons too. This isn't "systemic bias"; it's just a single rule being consistantly applied. Miss Pippa 09:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If the rules being consistently applied to one group of articles are not being consistently applied to a different set of articles, would you not argue that in reality, the rules are not being "consistently applied" at all? GRider\^talk 17:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all of the Hoenn gym leaders into one article. There's not enough info in them to justify seperate articles. Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Is there consensus that minor characters should nearly always be merged? (well, it's somewhat referred to on the WP:WIWO page). Or should we put up a Policy Consensus to determine just that? The argumentation here and on the other minor pokemon characters gets a bit repetitive. Radiant! 09:50, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if there is anything this can add to, otherwise delete. Oh, and in the aim of summing up all human knowledge, the carpet on the third step down at work is loose and has been removed. Bet you really needed to know that. Average Earthman 12:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Most users don't aim to read the entire wikipedia. Kappa 14:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge would be more appropriate. Maybe a List of Pokemon characters? Penwhale 15:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • We already have List of Pokémon characters. It's a redirect to List of Pokémon, which is itself a disambiguation page. kelvSYC 03:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn fancruft. ComCat 02:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: This article really falls under the domain of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokénav, a project that aims to create an article about every (non-Pokémon) major figure and place name from the Pokémon universe. The last time I checked, there's been little activity there, with Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokédex taking up most of the interest. kelvSYC 03:39, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge/redirect to List of Pokémon. Unless we're running out of disk space that is. In that case, delete! —RaD Man (talk) 07:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Pokecruft into List of Pokémon, although recent problems with Wikipedia suggest that perhaps we are beginning to run out of disk space. ;-) --Deathphoenix 16:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No, that's running out of servers ;-) - David Gerard 17:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere. Please - David Gerard 17:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. List of Pokémon or another article would be fine. Carrp | Talk 17:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I very much concur with Andrew Lenahan; there is a sort of systematic bias present, perhaps better described as selective blindness or a certain form of healthy intellectual arrogance (meaning no offense), due to the prevailing interests of the persons which tend to contribute to wikipedia (and take an interest in voting about such topics as this one) Lectonar 15:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand (I'd be glad to if no one else will), or Merge with the other Hoenn Gym Leaders. Also, isn't List of Pokémon a list of, well, Pokémon? Brawly is a human character. Ketsy 23:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete Does not deserve own page. --Oarias 23:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable webcomic about a paint-balling --nixie 00:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable yet. Zzyzx11 01:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete. Radiant! 13:29, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the above. A webcomic (versus a print comic) especially needs to be notable, and I don't think this is. --Deathphoenix 16:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline delete - bad name, bad article - David Gerard 17:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Currently appears to be an advertisment--nixie 00:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, software advertisement. Megan1967 00:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just an ad. Zzyzx11 01:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad-stub for a (currently) non-notable piece of software. --Deathphoenix 16:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline delete - I'd like evidence anyone cares - David Gerard 17:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:53, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neologism, not suitable for transwiki --nixie 00:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. BTW it's a possible copyvio from http://www.1hope.org/glossary.htm Miss Pippa 09:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dicdef, neologism, not in widespread use. Average Earthman 23:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur that this looks to be copyvio. Not-notable, dicdef, neologism, copyvio, {{and a partridge in a pear tree}}. --Deathphoenix 16:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Deathphoenix's elegant summary. Delete - David Gerard 17:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A group of beta testers is not notable--nixie 00:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A group of Microsoft beta testers does not seem notable enough for Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 01:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Concur, delete. Radiant! 13:29, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I concur, and if we include this, we can expect a whole swack of other beta testing teams from other companies (including more from Microsoft). --Deathphoenix 16:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to MSN to discourage recreation - David Gerard 17:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. I am not going to merge it to Pokémon (manga series), since that is about a particular Pokémon manga. See Category:Pokémon-related manga for other particular mangas. dbenbenn | talk 23:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are Pokémon-related manga comics inherently noteworthy and encyclopedic? With 245 unique google hits [1], what makes this subject notable and worthy of inclusion? GRider\^talk 00:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, pokemon fancruft. Megan1967 00:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Pokémon (manga series). Zzyzx11 02:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if we have an article on pokemon comics. If not, then keep... published book from notable phenomenon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable fancruft. Grue 19:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable publication by notable author. Gerard Jones is a frequently published author of fiction and comics. Gamaliel 19:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is actually something of note associated with this phenomenon! - Lucky 6.9 20:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn pokecruft. ComCat 02:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pokecruft. --Carnildo 05:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Doesn't meet any deletion criteria. Xezbeth 06:00, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes it does, notability is a de facto criterium. See also the discussion on David Gerard's proposal on VfD talk.
    • Where did I mention notability? Xezbeth 16:31, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, concur with Zzyzx11. Radiant! 13:31, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere. Please - David Gerard 17:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this Pokecruft. (I am, however, looking forward to Pikachu Meets the Burmese Tiger and a Horrific End) Edeans 20:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • LOL! I'll get right on it... - Lucky 6.9 08:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, concur with Zzyzx11. --Oarias 23:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was MERGE. I'm going to redirect to The Dark Tower (series). I'm unwilling to merge without more context. I suspect this "All-World" only appears in the latest book. dbenbenn | talk 21:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is this about? 'Delete--nixie 00:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge if there is a page about that particular fan series, otherwise delete. Tygar 03:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the relevant Stephen King universe. Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. - 01:15, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge if possible, delete if no-one can work out where the heck it should be merged to - David Gerard 17:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into The Dark Tower (series), where it properly belongs. Denni☯ 01:26, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 10:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A web comminity that the article tells has ceased to exist--nixie 00:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Why is this notable? Zzyzx11 02:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity Tygar 06:09, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent verification for the claims can be found - David Gerard 17:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 04:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These articles are gibberish. RickK 00:27, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; zero to three Google hits on the individual names. Delete them all unless notability is established in the articles. Antandrus 00:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Chuzaikun seems to be a Japanese TV personality, see [2]. Some of them don't even get any Google hits for their kanji names which is highly suspicious. All the articles should be deleted as is because they're incomprehensible sub-stubs. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 00:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, not notable. Megan1967 00:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No notable evidence. Zzyzx11 02:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. These almost belong in BJAODN for being unintentionally hilarious. Android79 04:37, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and put cleanup notice in. Fg2 05:50, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I DID put a cleanup notice on them, and asked the originator on his/her Talk page to clean them up so that they made sense. He/she did not respond. RickK 05:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I cleaned up some, and put a note on the talk page so that the user can follow my model. Found an article on one of the subjects in Japanese WP. Author appears to be a non-native speaker involved in comedians and sumo wrestlers. Having a model to imitate might help spelling, capitalization etc.
• Delete non-notable people. Grue 19:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete These are non notable people as far as I can see. Certainly Arawaka Masahiro is a very junior sumo wrestler ranked in the lower (obscure) echelons of the sport and certainly does not merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. Nashikawa 00:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of these as not notable in an encyclopedic sense. Jonathunder 01:08, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
• Delete all of them ComCat 02:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:37, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for being the hopeless confusing. Also the blood type fixation is being bizarre very much. Edeans 20:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a Japanese thing, like astrology. They don't ask "what's your sign?", they ask "what's your blood type?". I think I had to put that on my video rental application. --Calton | Talk 00:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, BTW. Summo wrestlers like Konishiki, sure, but not these guys. --Calton | Talk 00:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:55, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biography of a teenager, vanity--nixie 00:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable vanity. Zzyzx11 02:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, probably a testpage. Sjakkalle 09:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete', Vanity, not notable, not-encyclopedic.
• Delete. What is this, some teenage work of fiction? Not notable, even if autobiographical. Average Earthman 23:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity - David Gerard 17:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Uh-oh. Looks like some kid is really, REALLY pissed at mom and dad. Edeans 20:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Kid probably wants to be a blogger. -- Riffsyphon1024 20:56, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity; poor kid.Onlyemarie 03:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even though I feel genuinely sorry for the poor kid. --Jacobw 10:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 6 clear "delete" votes, 4 "keep" votes (one of whom based his/her vote on an invalid logical premise), 5 "merge" votes and 3 "abstain" votes. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep for now.

Noting that there is an overwhelming majority that does not believe that this should remain as a stand-alone article and noting that redirects to not necessarily destroy history, I am going to exercise my discretion as an ordinary editor and make the article into a redirect to Interlingua. I personally do not see any content that should be merged but if anyone else does, please pull it from the history. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Constructed language similar to Interlingua which the article acknowledges has "far fewer speakers" than Interlingua, which is itself hardly taking the world by storm. The "Academia pro Lingua Romanica", which designed the language, has a homepage on GeoCities and gets 107 Google hits. Googling for Romanica and language gets 13,200 hits, but most of it seems to be words in other languages and other things with the same name. "Romanica language" gets 155 hits, much of it Wikipedia-related. Googling for Romanica and Interlingua gets 1,650, much of which is on Wikipedia or not related. Maybe this is a notable conlang but it doesn't look like it to me. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 00:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I tend towards the opinion that any serious constructed language is notable given the lot of work involved. However, I'm not going to vote on this one until a linguist looks at it and tells me if it's really different from existing languages. It could be simple research placed on Geo because they couldn't afford a host of their own. No vote. Radiant! 09:53, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• The list of Romanica words at Wiktionary, the WikiProject Romanica at Wiktionary, and finally the discussion of Romanica and Ekspreso in the Wiktionary Beer Parlour may help everyone to form their decisions. Uncle G 16:59, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
• Keep all languages are notable (except some esoteric programming languages). Grue 19:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • And the difference between esoteric programming languages and esoteric invented languages being? No vote Denni☯ 01:33, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Keep - unless you want to invalidate the +200 Wiktionary entries Silvermane 22:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it's more like 600. And I pointed to the Beer Parlour discussion in part to point out that at least one person views the situation as the Romanica people setting up a WikiProject at Wiktionary in order to simply use Wiktionary as a hosting service (which we disallow for Wikipedia). Uncle G 13:36, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
• No vote - surely minor conlangs qualify as "original research"? -Sean Curtin 03:04, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Not notable, and few people (if any) actually use it. -Sean Curtin 01:30, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unremarkable conlang - somewhere between original research, self promotion, and vanity. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep here despite the fact that I strongly advocate deleting all its entries at Wiktionary. People need to know what it is so they can come to their own conclusion about its validity in the constrained environment of a single article. At the same time it does not need a lot of Wiktionary entries which would effectively legitimize its status as a language. Eclecticology 18:39, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

* Strong Keep, since this is a language being constructed and which has speakers. It is also a fairly well-written article. As for the pages in other languages, many of them may possibly be in the Romanica language or in other countries where the language is spoken more. тəzєті 21:08, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• • I'd like to see evidence that this language is spoken in any countries, or indeed that it is spoken at all. There's scant evidence that it is even written by more than a handful of people. Contrast this with Esperanto. There is plenty of evidence that Esperanto is both written and spoken, with societies of speakers in many countries; web pages, dictionaries, and real books written and published in the language; U.N. recognition; moves to make it the official language of various places; and the sorts of bleed-through that are exemplified at Esperanto in English-language media. There is none of this for Romanica. I pointed at the WikiProject so that you would see the bare lists of electronic mail mailboxes therein and the cross-references to Yahoo! Groups! (which in their turn cross-reference back to Wiktionary), and notice how incestuous this is. This has all the appearance of Wiktionary and Wikipedia being used as free hosting services for a language that no-one has ever spoken, and that only one person has ever written significant amounts in. Uncle G 17:40, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Delete as nonnotable original research and vanity. Honestly, between Westcountry Brythonic, Ivernic language, Romanica language, and Neo-Gaelic language (which hasn't been nominated for deletion yet but probably will be soon), it seems Wikipedia is experiencing a rash of langcruft. --Angr 12:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Does a set of articles with creation dates that span a period of two years constitute a "rash"? Or is it in fact a rash of language deletion nominations that Wikipedia is experiencing? ☺ Uncle G 17:40, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Merge with Interlingua please. Evertype 12:02, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • That will be fun. Reading the Yahoo! Groups! discussions (as best I can, given that it's all in Romanica) it appears that the Interlinguistas and the Romanicanistas are having a Big Fight. I wonder whether either language has a word for "handbag". Uncle G 17:40, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• No evidence yet presented that this invented language is in any significant use. Based on the evidence presented above, I am inclined to agree that this appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia and Wiktionary as a hosting service while they invent it. Delete as original research until and unless the language is discussed in some independent medium. Rossami (talk) 23:29, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent verifiability that anyone else cares can be found - David Gerard 17:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Conlangs, unlike real languages, are not inherently notable - especially when the article itself acknowledges that it's basically a slightly edited Interlingua. Merge with Interlingua. - Mustafaa 23:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Interlingua. Bogdan | Talk 23:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed w/ Cyrius. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to be a section on the Intrlingua article. Changed vote. тəzєті
• Strong Keep If this is a small language that's just beginning, we should just say so. It is better to have this info here than not to have it. Zantastik 01:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 15:48, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Is every single object from the Dragon Ball Z series encyclopedically noteworthy? With 139 unique google hits [3], what makes this article "worthy" of inclusion? GRider\^talk 00:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 01:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or keep, necessary to adequate coverage of the games/mangas/whatevers. Kappa 01:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) Keep, necessary to adequate coverage of Journey to the West, Monkey (TV series), Dragonball and Saiyuki. Kappa 10:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with main article. Just like lesser characters. Radiant! 09:54, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC) Thanks for explaining that, Dopefish. Very well, keep and expand. Radiant! 16:25, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn fancruft. ComCat 02:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the Nyoi-bō is the main character's signature weapon from an extremely well-known Chinese folktale that DBZ is loosely based on (Journey to the West). It's the "as-you-will resizeable cudgel" mentioned in the Sun Wukong article. I've seen several allusions to the Nyoi-bō in other anime/manga and I imagine there are many more in Chinese and Japanese culture. The article would need some expansion and clarification of this though. I think Nyoi-bō is just the Japonicized name for it, it would probably need redirecting to the Chinese name. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 04:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • The kanji/hanzi spelling is 如意棒 which gets 3,730 Google hits. The phonetic Japanese spelling にょいぼう gets 1,680 Google hits. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 04:05, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This weapon from Journey to the West as a plot device of an artless anime does not need its own article. Change vote to keep but redirect. Move to a title under its Chinese or Sanskrit name. Fire Star 18:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC) It can be mentioned in Sun Wukong or the DB article with one or two lines. Fire Star 06:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You wouldn't say that about Excalibur. Kappa 10:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point. There is also a link from this legend to some Chinese martial arts, especially Monkey style. Fire Star 18:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Borderline keep. Failing that, merge - David Gerard 17:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, When does google hit counters tell how good an article is? Wikipedia's main page gets more hits then one of millions of its other articles. And plus the page is very encyclopedic. Louisisthebest_007 19:14, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Dragonball is still very popular. This helps explain what could be unknown to a few. With other animes getting pages, why wouldn't DB not get any?

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page is currently a copyvio, I want to make sure it doesn't come back. Chromobarography is not currently a field of chromotography, the user that posted this article seems to have some role in the development/promotion of this unused technology (hoax?), and has tried to stick the details into the chromotography article too.--nixie 00:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 592 google results, 273 yahoo results. Not noteworthy yet. Delete due to copyvio -- Tygar 03:19, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • 133 actual [Google results]; most seem to be by the "inventor". No hits on PubMed, implying no significant peer-reviewed publications refer to this technique. Delete.
    • Above submission by TenOfAllTrades. Only 133? Still. Wow. Tygar 06:10, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — I smell snake oil. Is there any independent confirmation of all these seemingly self-promotional information links? — RJH 18:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Nomination blanked by anon user:212.38.111.226. Restored (without the "original research" pastel box). Rossami (talk) 23:32, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this red-headed step-child of the Perpetual Motion Machine. Edeans 21:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 15:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I count two deletes, four merges, and six keeps (including the anon).

Question: Notable? GRider\^talk 00:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, fancruft. Megan1967 01:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• No, delete. ComCat 02:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like Tatooine. Kappa 07:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The Tatooine article is too long and detailed to be merged. This isn't. Merge. Miss Pippa 09:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• If all the Saiyans caome from Planet Vegeta, merge with Sayan--nixie 09:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll accept that this may be an important planet in a fictional universe. Sjakkalle 09:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as Nixie suggests. Radiant! 09:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Of interest to some, considering how massively popular DBZ was/is. Xezbeth 17:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though needs refs - David Gerard 17:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs expanding, but is probably worthwhile to those with an interest. --Aranae 07:58, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP - I have significantly cleaned up this page and feel it no longer warrants deletion. PLEASE don't delete it! unsigned vote by 202.180.83.6 (talk • contribs)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Final vote tally is 6 clear keep votes, 3 clear merge votes, 2 to keep or merge, 3 clear delete votes (this is counting GRider's nomination as one) and 1 to merge or delete. That is 15 votes in total, and 8 of them say "keep" or "keep or merge". Sjakkalle 10:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Manga-cruft? With 756 matches on Google [4], what could possibly be written about this subject which would illustrate encyclopedic notability? GRider\^talk 01:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 01:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge, necessary to adequate coverage of Dragonball Kappa 01:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • P.S. you should google Dragonball not Dragon Ball, you'd get 8,240 hits. Kappa 01:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable DBZcruft. ComCat 02:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with main DBZ article. Radiant! 09:55, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Saiyan. (Same should probably happen to Halfbreed Saiyan.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge. The notion is important enough in the show's mythos, but perhaps it does not need its own article.Sinistro 16:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Quite a decent article considering the subject. Seems too large to merge anyway. Xezbeth 17:22, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge, as good as the article is, the subject of it is extremely unnotable in the grand scheme of things. Grue 20:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep --Phred Levi 23:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 756 hits seems notable enough to me; that is, if I bought into the concept of notability being a requirement for inclusion. It sure isn't listed on teh deletion policy, so why is it considered here? Delist; invalid nomination. —RaD Man (talk) 07:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs refs - David Gerard 17:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with main DBZ article. While I have less than zero interest in DBZ, I can recognise a good article when I see one. Denni☯ 01:45, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Merge with main DBZ topic. --Oarias 23:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 04:15, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grad student vanity--nixie 01:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 01:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable - Longhair | Talk 11:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline delete - needs independent verifiability - David Gerard 17:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Agree Borderline delete - if publications can be listed, could keep Srcastic 03:02, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 04:17, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non notable internet group, the dead hompage is a testament to their non-notability--nixie 01:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Zzyzx11 02:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We cannot include articles on internet groups which are now closed. (See below for why this is struck out. Sjakkalle 07:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC))
• Keep I would say it is notable, because it is from a very well known site with 1000's of members. (This vote was submitted by 206.75.182.82).

Delete. We cannot include articles on internet groups which are now closed. This was my vote, and somebody, 206.75.182.82, has replaced that with a keep vote (stricken out above). I assert that my vote is, and always has been, delete on this (if you do not believe this, check the history). I suggest that the administrator who handles this debate give the anon who altered my vote a warning that such behavior on a vfd-debate is not acceptable. Sjakkalle 07:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I think now that this was an honest mistake, my original delete vote I see is above the stricken out vote which was signed with my name. The keep vote was made by 206.75.182.82, and should be counted as one. Sjakkalle 07:49, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Android79 17:07, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• I am all but certain that this has been deleted in the distant past. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:27, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. If it was deleted in the past, that's grounds for speedying. Radiant! 16:39, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no independent verifiability - David Gerard 17:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Anyone been to ClockCrew.net recently? The Clock Crew is still very much alive and it has always been a phenomenon. Considering there are still Clocks posting on Newgrounds today, that the Clocks have influenced the creation of many groups and crazes, and that Wikipedia has documented far lesser known fads, I think this is a piece of history that should remain in the archives.
  • This vote by 80.58.2.235 (talk · contribs) Smoddy (_t^g_e^c) 21:57, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 23:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Neologism of no currency--nixie 01:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Neologism. It got 86 unique google hits, and none for Communistwealth + Lally. BTW, Hawaii is not a commonwealth. DaveTheRed 01:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Needs references from notable sources and news. Zzyzx11 02:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV neologism. Binadot 17:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable neologism. Article probably created by Mr. Lally himself. Gamaliel 17:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism - David Gerard 17:43, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Qwertyca

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 23:01, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Reads like a cut and paste, there's nowhere to merge it, unencyclopedic--nixie 01:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Posting a school lesson plan is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 02:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, What Wikipedia Is Not. Not really enough here to transwiki to books - David Gerard 17:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Agree with the above comments, delete and allow for organic decay. --GRider\^talk 22:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:46 Z

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect Dennis Nedry to a new List of characters in Jurassic Park article. Deathphoenix 04:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable character from Jurassic Park?--nixie 01:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep he was pretty notable, most of the bad stuff that happened was pretty much his fault. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:25, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The article has been slightly rewritten and formatted since it was nominated. Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. The name (as "Denis nedry") is misspelled. I've redirected the typo to our real "Dennis Nedry" article. Probably still not worthy of an article, though. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. -Sean Curtin 04:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. DanKeshet 08:26, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes, the bad stuff was his fault, but he's still only a minor character. Merge as such. Radiant! 09:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Jurassic Park doesn't seem to contain any info on characters. Merge. Mgm|^(talk) 09:59, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the Jurassic Park article. Characters that do not exist outside of a single book/film, and have had no wider impact on culture do not need separate articles. Average Earthman 12:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Jurassic Park for reasons cited by the Earthman. Perhaps redirect the correctly capitalized spelling, as I don't think it merits its own article, but don't redirect this version with lowercase "n". Barno 18:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect. Again I think we see very poor understanding of the issues and processes here. The Dennis Nedry article is not up for deletion here, and discussion of whether to redirect it should be on its talk page. Denis nedry is a bit of a problem, it doesn't seem a useful redirect to me, but there are other issues. My suggestion is to move it to Denis Nedry, and then to nominate the resulting historyless redirect at Denis nedry on redirects for deletion. But we need to get this vote out of the way first. Andrewa 20:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the redirect and keep the article at Denis Nedry. He was an important character in that film. He set off the chain of events which almost killed everyone and destroyed the Park. Megan1967 22:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this article, but keep the Dennis Nedry one. Miss Pippa 09:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dennis Nedry. Capitalistroadster 10:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge and redirect - David Gerard 17:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect as per Andrewa's analysis above. --Christofurio 21:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dennis Nedry. Jurassic Park is significant, and this is a very important character in the story.Oklonia 01:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Denis nedry; merge and redirect Dennis Nedry.
  
  Shortly after the original article at Denis nedry was vfd'd, it was redirected to Dennis Nedry. The latter then had the {{vfd}} template applied, and the discussion pointed here. Since at no point in Dennis Nedry's history does any of the text from Denis nedry appear, GFDL considerations do not apply. Furthermore, the redirect is both miscapitalized and misspelled, so is unlikely to be searched for, and exceedingly unlikely to be linked to.
  
  Regarding Dennis Nedry, this should be merged per Average Earthman's reasoning, either to Jurassic Park or with Ian Malcolm and Alexis 'Lex' Murphy (and possibly others) into a List of characters in Jurassic Park. —Korath (Talk) 17:06, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 4 clear "delete" votes and 3 variations on "keep" votes (evenly split between "keep as is" and "keep as merge" - yes, I know it's hard to evenly split an odd number of votes). One "keep" vote by a relatively new user somewhat discounted. Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to keep (in some form) for now.

Noting that there is a clear majority to delete and finding myself most persuaded by the "merge" arguments, I am going to exercise my discretion and call this one as a "merge and redirect". Rossami (talk) 05:32, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is nothing more than a fan-written plot summary of an episode of a TV series. The series as a whole (Static Shock) has a page on Wikipedia, which already provides plenty of detail (arguably excessive itself) about the series. Since Wikipedia does not strive to become an episode guide, I feel the material should be deleted. Tverbeek 02:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Static Shock and delete this article. Tygar 03:20, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Merge and delete" is not a generally allowable vote because it destroys the attribution history required by GFDL. Do you mean "merge and redirect"? Rossami (talk)
• Keep or merge and redirect to a list of Static Shock episodes. Needs to be trimmed of extraneous detail if merged. -Sean Curtin 04:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, fancruft. Megan1967 22:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but expand to include commentary, behind-the-scenes information, etc. making this something useful, not just a synopsis. Don't merge, because if every Static Shock episode ends up merged, the article will be too big! Miss Pippa 09:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. True, but then why does a series like Star Trek have an article for almost every episode. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Because a series like the original Star Trek is notable enough to warrant it, and has people interested in doing it. Individual episodes of ST:TOS have been springboards for movies, countless novels, and megabytes of fanfic, and the topics of academic papers. If Static Shock turns out to be as influential as ST:TOS, it'll eventually get similar attention from a legion of fans. But this article was created by a single fan with (by his own description) Asperger's Syndrome who has since abandoned the project. The addition of commentary and behind-the-scenes info might make it a better article, but that seems rather unlikely when no one's even bothered to copyedit this synopsis, or even to write a synopsis of episode 2 (let alone 3-52). The series as a whole is notable, and I'm working on improving that article to reflect that; this episode by itself is not. Tverbeek 14:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - We do have episode guides for bigger and more notable series, but we've yet to set a bar. If I were to set that bar, I wouldn't go that low. kelvSYC 03:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with KelvSyc. Radiant! 13:31, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs refs - David Gerard 17:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity--nixie 02:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Another vanity filled article. Zzyzx11 03:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Fred 06:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. ComCat 02:24, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. Koyna 10:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Jonathunder 05:59, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 17:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Vanity of vanities, all is vanity. Whatcanbrowndo 20:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete kelp

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 05:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We deleted contestants for the ultimate jeopardy! series, is this guy more notable than them?--nixie 02:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Maybe someone should start the Celebrity Blackjack article and merge Dave Stan into it. Zzyzx11 03:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 03:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, concur with Megan. Radiant! 13:31, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 17:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:59, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

He's a college student, and this is his resume. CDC (talk) 02:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vainity. Jonathunder 02:38, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a job search site to post your resume. Zzyzx11 03:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, try a resume or job respository/database. Tygar 03:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, resumecruft. DaveTheRed 08:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transfer to resumewiki.com and delete. Bearcat 08:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable yet, vanity. Megan1967 23:40, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to resumewiki.com as per the suggestion of Bearcat. —RaD Man (talk) 07:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just a CV - David Gerard 17:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 22:59, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

One-man indie rock act with one album released on an undetermined indie label. 118 hits on Google, not all of which are relevant. Doesn't meet the notability and music guidelines. Delete. Android79 04:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, artist vanity. Megan1967 23:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per music notability guidelines. Radiant! 13:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity - David Gerard 17:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Foreign language dictdef. RickK 05:16, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The concept of sisu is an important part of Finnish culture and requires more than just a dictdef to explain. — JIP | Talk 05:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This is the English Wikipedia, not the Finnish Wikipedia. RickK 05:36, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I consider sisu one of the extremely few Finnish words that can be loaned into English, like sauna. — JIP | Talk 05:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Can you provide examples of the use of this word in normal English discourse? RickK 06:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it's an important part of Finnish culture, like wabi-sabi in Japanese culture. Kappa 07:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's one of the words most often used when, in English, referring to Finnish mentality or culture. Johan Magnus 07:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe so, but there are several articles on Finland and Finnish things in the English wikipedia, and Sisu isn't mentioned there, except as the name of a tank and a metal band. By comparison, 'sauna' is extensively used. As such, weak delete until notability is further established. Radiant! 10:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Sisu" is also a very common brand of liquorice-flavoured candy in Finland. — JIP | Talk 10:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's one where it's mentioned: Johan Ludvig Runeberg. And Finland lists it as one of the "Characteristics of Finnishness". Kappa 14:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, thanks for that. For some reason, googling 'sisu site:en.wikipedia.org' didn't find Mr. Runeberg. Ok, vote changed to Keep. Radiant! 13:32, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sauna is a functional loanword to English, used also for non-Finnish saunas. Sisu is only a citate-borrowing used when referring to things Finnish. That's a huge difference. You can write on things related to Finnish without introducing the term, but it helps a lot. Johan Magnus 17:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. RickK: "This is the English Wikipedia, not the Finnish Wikipedia." no it isn't. It's the English-language version of Wikipedia, not just an encyclopedia of English things. Surely an encyclopedia should teach us about cultures other than just our own. Kevintoronto 14:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I wonder how many aspects of English language nations have articles in the other language Wikipedias? RickK 19:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Most of them, I would guess. Burschik 15:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like an important aspect of Finnish culture. Android79 17:21, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only if the intention is to write about the historical and cultural aspects of the concept, and its prevalence in brand names. Delete if the intention is merely to duplicate Wiktionary:sisu and write about the word. Uncle G 17:41, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with Kevintoronto. This is a significant concept. Binadot 17:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Though I generally agree with my pal RickK, I fear this is one of those few times that I'm voting a bit differently. Keep. Interesting, encyclopedic and culturally significant. - Lucky 6.9 21:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a good beginning for an article. It's notable! --Neigel von Teighen 21:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article ought to be better, but that's no reason for deletion. (I can not at all understand the arguments for moving this to the Wiktionary.) Ruhrjung 02:15, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, culturally important. ComCat 02:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; notable. The first Finnish word I learned, in the context of reading about the Winter War. Could make an excellent article. Antandrus 02:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Seems keepworthy. DS 14:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Widely mentioned in articles on Finnish subjects. Capitalistroadster 10:54, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We need this at least as a disambiguation page; the various products with Sisu in their brand name are notable. jni 17:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Completely agree with Kevintoronto, FWIW. James F. (talk) 17:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is more than a foreign language dictdef. Jonathunder 06:02, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Keep. This isn't just another Finnish word; anyone who knows anything about Finland should know about the concept of "sisu". - Mustafaa 06:14, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and extremely so. Another invalid nomination which further illustrates that VfD is the cancer of Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 08:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • False on both counts. The nomination, for an article being a dictionary definition, was a perfectly proper one; and VFD is not "the cancer of Wikipedia". VFD is just a gardening tool. It is Willy on Wheels that is the cancer of Wikipedia. Uncle G 19:22, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 17:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDY. jni 18:57, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Nonesense article Jschwa1 12:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy deleted as patent nonsense. utcursch | talk 12:34, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 18:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone really pronounce STFU as "stuff you?" Even if it's common, I don't see how this article is encyclopedic. Delete, perhaps Merge the pronunciation guide into STFU first. Android79 04:24, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to STFU The STFU article is just as long as "stuff you"... perhaps a transwiki of both to Wiktionary? Tygar 06:17, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sure, if Wiktionary does ETLAs. Anyway, delete this one. Radiant! 13:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • No need. Wiktionary had STFU three months before Wikipedia did. I'm sure that if the claimed pronunciation can be attested, Wiktionary will be happy to have it in Wiktionary:STFU alongside the other two pronunciations. There's nothing encyclopaedic in this article. Delete. Uncle G 17:20, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
• Delete. Hmmm, I could swear I just saw this discussion on an amateur astronomy mailing list I'm on. Not encyclopedic, though. HyperZonk^talk 16:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I do on occasion. Still not encyclopedic. --InShaneee 16:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• DTFU, where "D"=Delete. Sorry; I mean "not encyclopedic", with no need to transwiki. Barno 18:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nnnonsense ComCat 02:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until Southern Tenant Farmers Union is created - David Gerard 17:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:00, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable website. RickK 05:31, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unless someone can provide notable references. Zzyzx11 07:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable website. --Stormie 07:22, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Deb 12:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Haaay [sic] guys! Delete as not encyclopedically notable. Site for webcomics about a few guys and their friends. Such things are a dime a gigadozen and this one's significance has not been established. Barno 18:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no independent verifiability that anyone cares - David Gerard 17:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP and MOVE to Parable of the talents. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 03:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

POV ("abundant with meaning") original research. RickK 06:39, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. First, the first section of the article should be moved into a new article called something like Parable of Talents. But more importantly, the sub-sections "Teachings of the Parable" and "View in Modern Context" seem too much POV, unless notable references are cited. Zzyzx11 07:27, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Modified. Removed teachings / views because of no notable references. Zykuak 07:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good topic, good article. A move to Parable of the talents or similar title would be fine, but that doesn't need to be discussed here. Agree that the removed sections were original research, owing to a lack of attribution. Andrewa 09:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete. I don't see where other parables are individually listed in Wikipedia. Gorrister 13:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The parables are listed individually in List of Bible stories, under the heading Parables of Jesus. Zykuak 16:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, POV original research/essay. Megan1967 23:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep with Zykuak's edits. One of the most famous of Jesus's parables. Should probably be renamed though. DaveTheRed 18:57, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well done Zykuak. All of Jesus's parables are probably notable and this one should be kept. Rename as Parable of the Talents. Capitalistroadster 11:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• A certain keep in present form (although a move to Parable of the talents would probably be an improvement). I would probably defend an article on almost any passage in the Bible, Koran, or any other canonical scripture of a major religion, as long as the writing is NPOV. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:57, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename and keep Denni☯ 01:56, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:57, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yet again another non-notable Internet two weeks wonder. I deleted the copyrighted lyrics. RickK 06:40, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. A non-notable song written by a non-notable person. Zzyzx11 07:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Hoary 07:56, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't seem to have gathered any great following as yet. - Vague | Rant 08:41, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. I know I've seen quite a following. --L33tminion | (talk) 14:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Might be worth having an article on the general topic of this genre—does it have a name?—in which it could be listed. Doesn't merit its own article. Seems like a stale derivative imitation of Badgerbadgerbadger to me. "The one-L lama, he's a priest/The two-L llama, he's a beast/And I will bet a silk pajama/There isn't any three-L lllama."—Ogden Nash Dpbsmith (talk) 03:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Even if there is a following somewhere, there is not enough information here to justify its keeping Seizure_Dog 22:08, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC).
• Delete; just a temporary fad. If people still remember it in 5–10 years, then we can recreate the article. Psychonaut 03:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without independent verification that anyone cares - David Gerard 17:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A funny song with a following. 96T 11:23, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. or Merge This article is referenced on another Wikipedia article on Llamas Ethereal 04:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. However, the fact that so many dedicated Wikipedians have been unable to verify the core information in this article leads me to conclude that we must delete it as unverifiable. I am going to exercise my discretion to do so.

If authoritative sources can be found verifying the core content of this article, it may someday be appropriate to nominate it for undeletion. Rossami (talk) 05:41, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not noteworthy.

Note: VfD started by Rad Racer

• Comment. I have a feeling this article might fall into the same situation as the internet memes and sci-fi fanboy arguments listed on VfD: Is it really notable enough to be in Wikipedia? I abstain. Zzyzx11 07:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Twelve google hits for "lolita method" including two from Wikipedia. Rad Racer 20:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if not a hoax. Google Groups gives more hits. Grue 20:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, likely hoax. Google on "Scott Donner" shows only this Wikipedia article; Google News on "Scott Donner" only shows postings in 1999 by a single user "pred@altavista.net". Similarly, Google News search on "Freedom Storehouse Press" shows only limited entries, some by "pred" himself. Significantly, none of these Google News postings predate 1999, although Usenet News was very actively used as early as the mid-1980s and very few topics were off limits in certain newsgroups like alt.tasteless and alt.sex.* and others. This seems like some guy doing self-promotion and inventing an "underground" legend and history for his 1999 Usenet posting. If some bona fide references could be provided that this underground book actually existed prior to the 1999 Usenet posting, and that it was actually noteworthy in some way (discussed in mainstream media even if only to strongly condemn it, or Congressional hearings or an FBI investigation or a blacklist somewhere), then it might be valid to keep. But a 1999 Usenet posting that didn't seem to generate any discussion on Usenet, either then or now ... that's not notable. There were only 3 responses to "Condor"'s Feb 2005 Usenet posting, nobody on Usenet speaking up to say they ever heard of or saw such a book in the 1980s. The burden of proof of notability, and non-hoax status of the alleged 1980s "legendary underground" hardcopy book, is on the original contributor. -- Curps 03:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment not a hoax, a quick search on http://www.asstr.org for "The Lolita Method" pulls 2 excerpts posted From: dantheman@freedomstorehousepress.com to alt.sex.stories.moderated: [5][6] (WARNING, these files may be considered child pornography where you reside). I remember hearing about this book floating among several pedos on AOL, back when I worked for them. So it definately exists. Whether or not this belongs on Wiki is the real question. I tend to think perhaps a 1 paragraph brief mention on Lolita would suffice.  ALKIVAR™  03:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • These are post-1999 references, and they're posted by "Freedom Storehouse Press" itself, the publisher, which is likely some one-or-two person operation. Seems like self-promotion. I'm not disputing that "Lolita Method" may have been posted to Usenet, but lots of things of every description were posted to Usenet, including material even more controversial than this. The claim to noteworthiness would seem to rest on the alleged factual existence of a notorious underground hardcopy book circulating in the 1980s; but this claim would seem to be a hoax invented at the time of the original Usenet posting. In other words, it seems that the original publication of the material was on Usenet and the legend of an underground hardcopy book was likely invented in that posting itself. Or at least that a hardcopy version was not widely known or circulated. If there really was a noteworthy and notorious book in circulation, it would have left some trace or evidence of its existence... the Moral Majority or evangelical groups or Congressional hearings or children's advocacy groups, etc. etc. would have taken note of it and condemned it. Other equally unsavory topics like snuff films or satanic cults were certainly widely discussed and condemned in mainstream news media... why does there seem to be no trace whatsoever of this supposedly notorious and therefore noteworthy book prior to 1999, if it was widely circulated a decade earlier? This seems to be a vanity article, or spam advertising self-promotion. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if references can be provided for the actual existence and notoriety of a hardcopy book in the late 1980s and early 1990s. -- Curps 04:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I dont disagree with that, however the article itself states it was originally published in 1989 "it was published by Freedom Storehouse Press in 1989". Can we verify this fact as true or not? I've no doubt it didnt hit usenet til later.  ALKIVAR™  06:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not alt.sex.stories (even as interesting as WikiEroticFiction would be). -- Cyrius|✎ 05:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Curps. Radiant! 13:33, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline keep, if the damn thing's existence can be verified - David Gerard 17:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if the book can be verified to really exist, delete otherwise. — JIP | Talk 18:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I would interpret the above as a delete, since you seem to be saying the burden of proof is on proving that it did exist (which I agree with), and that hasn't been furnished yet. But existence alone isn't enough... there's also the issue of notoriety or noteworthiness... not every book out of the millions published in the 1980s is in Wikipedia, far from it. I'd really like to see some indication that this book made waves in some way or left some kind of trace (if it even existed)... that somebody somewhere actually took note of it or knew of it, other than the authors and their immediate circle of acquaintances. -- Curps 19:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Question: are the doubts about the supposed history of the book or its mere existence? If its existence cannot be demonstrated, delete. If its existence can be demonstrated, but the facts are in doubt, keep and cleanup. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The date of publication, and the fact that it wasn't circulated through mainstream bookstores, could explain the lack of internet references, although that doesn't establish notability. Rad Racer 01:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• DELETE in the strongest way possible after more research this does appear to be a partial fake. The book itself in question has been found on Archive.org. The acknowledgements page from it states it was created in 1995 and from the archive.org copy the main page for it states: "Okay, for those of you who just NEVER GOT IT! THE LOLITA METHOD is a work of metafiction – a combination of literary criticism & storytelling dressed up as a self-help book. Still puzzled? Okay, snot-brain, I’ll FUCKING SPELL IT OUT FOR YOU! ALL pedo fuck fiction falls into a predictable assortment of themes and characters. Good authors learn how to mix and match these elements like literary Geranimals (tell me I’m not dating myself with this reference, PLEASE!) THE LOLITA METHOD is a satire of these hackneyed cliches.". Any and all history on this page is faked since its claims predate the book itself.  ALKIVAR™  04:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • So does it actually exist as a real book or does it not? If it does, then either keep the article as it stands or rewrite it to reflect the real content of the book. If it does not, delete the article. — JIP | Talk 10:25, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • if you count a pay only membership html document as a book then yes, otherwise no.  ALKIVAR™  11:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't. It would have to have been released in public bookstores - if only specialist erotica bookstores, at that. A pay only membership HTML document has far too limited an audience. I guess you'd have to have been interested in such "Lolita hunting" in advance to even know the document existed. I change my earlier "undecided" vote to delete. — JIP | Talk 11:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I don't really understand. Who wrote that quote that Alkivar mentioned? Rad Racer 13:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • that quote was written by the PRED the "author" of this webcontent on the introduction page for The Lolita Method.  ALKIVAR™  18:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • So he admitted it was never published as a physical book, and was written in 1995? I tried to find Lolita Method on Archive.org, but nothing came up on the search. Rad Racer 18:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • You werent looking in the right place then. Archive.org has a copy of the freedomstorehousepress.com site which is where i found all this stuff.  ALKIVAR™  22:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Beats me. But if it was never a real book, the article can go. That's all I care about. — JIP | Talk 13:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• So if it exists why the article should be deleted? If you researched the topic why don't you go and fix the article? Grue 06:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Archive.org is the Internet Archive "Wayback Machine", which archives old versions of websites. So Alkivar is almost certainly referring to an online version on some now-defunct website, not a paper book. -- Curps 11:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 1) Just because something exists does not mean it belongs on wikipedia. 2) it was never a print version book, unless you printed the html pages off. It was a paid membership only html document created in 1995. 3) I feel this merits a delete, I do not need to explain my personal criteria to you.  ALKIVAR™  11:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless facts are independently verified. Gamaliel 16:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. OK, the archive.com links I found were this one and this one. Was the book printed in the late 80's/early 90s and the acknowledgements written in 1995, when it published on the website? Or was the whole thing written in 1995? Hmm.. Rad Racer 02:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I think we are getting close to resolving this. See The Story of Freedom Storehouse Press, which gives an account of how Pred got involved with them. Then there is Pred's account from Google Groups:

Nov 23 1999, 12:00 am show options

Newsgroups: alt.tasteless

From: p...@altavista.net - Find messages by this author

Date: 1999/11/23

Subject: {AT} The Lolita Method, Ch. 1 (1/2) .. by PRED

Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse

Everyone:

As promised months ago, I am posting the first three chapters of my book, The Lolita Method: The Sure Fire Way to Pick Up "Forbidden" Girls. This ends Part 1 of the book. I will be posting the next sections as I re-edit and re-format them. Eventually, the entire text of The Lolita Method will be posted here on alt.tasteless. It will then be archived on Jaydog's alt.tasteless archive -- http://www.aracnet.com/~jaydog­/ -- if he's willing.

The original first edition of The Lolita Method was written and published by Freedom Storehouse Press in 1989, with a second edition printed in 1991. I have since revised and updated the text. The book was co-written with a friend of mine who has given me permission to revise and post it. At the time I wrote this, I was not PRED. I was just a humble public school teacher with a dream.

I left teaching and a failed first marriage soon after I completed the first draft of The Lolita Method, relocating to New York City. There I met a host of underground writers in the 'zine world. I showed one of them my manuscript for The Lolita Method, and he turned me on to Freedom Storehouse Press. They printed and published the book, and it was distributed under the counter in porno shops and headshops.

Anyone who has a copy of the first or second edition has a real collector's item. I've been looking for an extra copy for the last couple months now, but no luck so far. If you have one, put it up on e-bay. I've had an offer of $100 for the book, which is amusing because it was printed on cheap paper with a staple binding.

Well, that's enough reminiscing for one day. Enjoy ..

Rad Racer 02:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Extreme delete. The techniques in this book didn't even work. Total ripoff. —RaD Man (talk) 04:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Good sleuthing on the Lolita Method article. The The Story of Freedom Storehouse Press clinches the matter. They claim to have met Pred through Usenet. And I was about to say that proves it was later than 1989, but looking at the Wikipedia Usenet article, I see that Usenet was created in 1980. But here we seemingly have the smoking gun:

Although PRED takes frequent hiatuses from writing and posting to ASS, even during his absence his presence looms over the group like an omnipresent storm cloud on the horizon. When Todd, Gary and Sean first stumbled upon ASS in the Fall of 2001, PRED had been retired from the newsgroup for over a year. Yet, frequent mentions and allusions to his work prompted the trio to investigate his writings. The resulting study would forever change the three partners’ business plans while simultaneously giving birth to the concept and reality of Freedom Storehouse Press.

After reading the body of PRED’s work, the trio’s mission became clear. Contact PRED and solicit his involvement in a website devoted to the promotion of ultracore fiction.

Reaching PRED was simple enough. His email address appears at the beginning and end of each of his posts. By the time Todd sent out the first email query to PRED, all three partners had done an extensive as well as intensive Google search on PRED. They were now intimately familiar with almost every story, commentary and flame he had ever posted. They also knew he had officially retired from ASS a year earlier, and this time he appeared serious.

Etc., etc. From the first paragraph, it appears obvious that Pred's relationship with them began in Fall 2001. Yet - on Google groups, Pred's post of Nov 23, 1999 states that Freedom Storehouse Press published his book in 1989. Why would he have written about them in 1999 if they did not contact him until 2001? Ah, the plot thickens! There is some sort of contradiction here. Well, I thought I had solved this mystery, but now it appears it may never be solved. Rad Racer 06:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Deathphoenix 04:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment. 21-17 in favor of deletion doesn't look like consensus to keep. I'd call it no consensus --Carnildo 07:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic list.

• Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files, and
• Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base

There are, near as I can tell, nearly 42,000 ZIP Codes in the US, plus however many APO/FPO ZIP Codes there are for overseas postings. I question the point, purpose, and/or expenditure of resources for such a list. This appears to have been considered for deletion last April, but I can't find any archive of the discussion: I hope I'm not reinventing the wheel here.

See also the sublists for the states on the same page, which also deserve the axe.

Note: a description of the organizational scheme and the neat map are already in the actually encyclopedic Zip code article that this list links from.

--Calton | Talk 07:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. Not useful unless they're correct, which is unlikely to remain true, and complete, which they aren't. Zip codes change at the rate of two or three per year per three-digit area; even postal workers (which I was for a few years) have a hard time remembering them. A listing by three-digit prefixes would at least be maintainable, and would probably fit onto a single page besides. The need for full five- and nine-digit zip lookups can be satisfied by a link to the USPS. —Korath (Talk) 07:41, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. So you wish to delete its subpages too, am I correct? I think these lists are useful within wikipedia, and something that people might actually look up. And the map's great. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • So you wish to delete its subpages too? Of course. They're equally as useless as the main list. And how exactly are these lists useful? "Hmm, I wonder where ZIP Code 94595 is? I know! I'll look it up on Wikipedia!" And the map? It's the one from ZIP Code, so it's not going anywhere if this list bites the dust. --Calton | Talk 08:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What about the idea of keeping it as a fairly harmless way for people to find Wikipedia? There *must* be a lot of people who have searched for zip codes on google or something, and found the article. I'd like to see it completly cross-indexed with the town/city pages, by the way. Yes, I do have something of an interest in these; I created the Wyoming zip codes page. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 09:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Except that Google automatically returns a map of the zip code as its first entry when you search for a zip code. Trying to spam search engines (or even appearing to try to do so) isn't what Wikipedia is about...and it's not particularly difficult to run across us on Gooogle anyway. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • So perhaps that's a poor example. But what about keeping it with the idea of cross-indexing it with all of the town pages? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This page can be useful. Sjakkalle 09:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)I agree with the arguments below, but not with the original argument "unmaintainable". However, I realize that "unencyclopedic" is true and change my vote to Transwiki... to somewhere. Sjakkalle 12:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As original material, this belongs in wikisource. Transwiki. Radiant! 10:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Won't happen. Last time this happened, I tried moving the stuff there, and Eclecticology yelled at me. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The zip code article offers enough lookup functions in its external links. Besides, it would set a horrible precedent. If we keep this, people will start zip code lists for every single country in the world. Pic looks useful, though. Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, but I think it would be great to have postal codes for other countries as well; especially since those might be harder to find. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Such lists would be as equally as useless as this one. And how exactly would a non-US postal code list be useful? "Hmm, I wonder where postal code M5W 1E6 is? I know! I'll look it up on Wikipedia!" --Calton | Talk 00:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, exactly! That would be a fantastic resource to have. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The map is interesting but the information can be obtained in other, more appropriate places. Gorrister 13:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree wtih MGM. --L33tminion | (talk) 13:59, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia isn't the United States Postal Service, and the USPS keeps zip code info updated more accurately and rapidly than we can hope to. There's something encyclopedic to be said about zip codes, and postal codes in general—we don't need articles on each five-digit number. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • For those that would say it's unmaintainable, wouldn't it be very simple to create a bot that did this? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Ah, I see some people are just determined to get rid of this list. Just an FYI—it was already listed on VfD in the past, and was kept (even though it contained much less information than it does now). As for moving it to WikiSource, I am afraid this is not going to work as the list was in fact moved here from WikiSource in the past. Then, as for the usefulness of the list—I fail to comprehend how it is not useful. I, in fact, thought of Wikipedia first when I needed to look a ZIP code up (a while ago), and I like this layout much better than whatever USPS can offer. Plus, when complete, the list is invaluable to those who need, for example, to know all of the ZIP codes in, say, a state. Good luck trying to find such a list on the USPS site. USPS works fine for one-time queries, but not when you need to get ZIP codes in bulk. Finally, as for keeping the list current, this is the same issue that can be applied to virtually any information that can be updated. I can take care of all Iowa ZIP codes, and undoubtedly there will be a person (or several) to keep the lists of codes for other states as well. To me, just because some of the sub-pages are incomplete is not a good enough reason to delete them (you wouldn't delete all of the exisiting stubs solely on the basis of their "incompleteness", would you). Sorry about the long rant, but I like this list and find it useful.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:08, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Does anyone have a copy of the old VfD discussion? The question was raised back in 2003—many of the arguments (or Wikipedia itself) may have evolved significantly since then. (I don't think Google returned maps of zip codes back then, for example.) Finding bulk zip codes doesn't seem particularly difficult—Googling for zip codes iowa returns this site [7] as the third hit. You can sort by city name or zip number, and there are pages there for all U.S. states. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 16:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem with googled bulk codes is that they are awfully outdated and incorrect. I am not saying that the lists we have in Wikipedia at this point of time are perfect, but at least we are striving to improve and update them. The sites you can dig up in google are not.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 17:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• A link from zip code to such a list is better. Delete. Penwhale 16:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not have our own page, that we maintain, to link to, instead? Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If you delete it, what will you link to from ZIP code?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 16:34, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - There are several other country post codes with individual entries on Wikipedia, in particular the UK. Should whatever consensus reached here apply to those articles as well? Nick04 16:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the main zip-code list page. The organizational information, at least, is semi-interesting. — RJH 18:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I prefer a link to the USPS. Besides, USPS will update it much faster than Wikipedia, right? Zzyzx11 18:47, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for the original nominator's reasons. Look, people, I work for Claritas, a data house which works closely with the US Census Bureau. Census geographies change once a decade, unless a new county is formed or dissolved, but ZIP codes and their boundaries can change whenever an individual postmaster says so, anytime during any year. This list's information is neither permanent nor easily maintainable, and I don't think there's anything sufficiently encyclopedic about the topic that we need to include it. Even 90210 (used in the title of a TV series) or the ZIP code of midtown Washington, DC don't meet the notability bar for my tastes. The same applies to postal codes from elsewhere. Barno 18:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been trying to get this stuff deleted for quite a while now. Not encylopedic, impossible to maintain, trivia that can be linked to as an external link. RickK 19:36, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • What external link do you suggest? The USPS search is almost useless. --SPUI (talk) 01:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • How about http://www.melissadata.com/Lookups/? or this? RickK 07:55, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
      • I hope you're joking about the second link - that's a Wikipedia mirror. As for the former, it looks decent. Not as top-down as this, but those might change too often to be worthwhile. --SPUI (talk) 08:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Oy. I didn't even catch that the second one was a mirror. Sheesh.  :) RickK 09:17, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or move to Wikisource. Wikipedia articles are neither directories nor collections of public domain or other source material. Kosebamse 19:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them. Unmaintainable, unencyclopedic. DaveTheRed 22:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the map and general information (or merge into zip code); not sure about the detailed lists. Does the USPS site have lists like that, or would one have to search separately for each code? --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - obviously useful almanac-like information, which is encyclopedic hereabouts - David Gerard 02:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's a list of lists of information easily available elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base. Kosebamse 06:19, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's covered under the requirements for a general knowledge base (provided you're using the criteria of "public domain"), since it can have many uses within Wikipedia. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Might as well delete it. Maybe a shorter equivalent list, such as a List of USPS sectional centers and the regions they service, would be more acceptable here, as USPS sectional centers are denoted by just the first three digits of a ZIP code, meaning there are only a maximum of 1000 such entities, making the list much more manageable, and such information would be hard to search for on the Internet, even though it is possible to do so and it would, arguably, not count as original research. Denelson83 02:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect the main article into ZIP code, but delete all sub-pages. However, if someone were to change the list to only list the first three digits rather than each and every ZIP code, I'd vote to keep that. -Sean Curtin 03:00, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all - horrendously incomplete and utterly unmaintainable. Image is interesting though. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I retract the incomplete part, it seems to be much less bad than it was previously and than I assumed it still was based on a quick glance. Still unmaintainable though. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This is the correct level to record this information (cf. Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Postal district). Why is it unmaintainable? If we have allowed the massive (and useless) List of asteroids series, then this is perfectly admissable. -- RHaworth 09:31, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
• Keep. If someone had suggested to START this list, I'm not sure it would be worth the effort. But considering it is essentially complete and all that has to happen now is maintenance, it seems like a perfectly good resource of information. I find it very suiting that while attempting to find the best alternative to the wikipedia article in question, RickK above referenced a mirrored version of the same article-- I think that's saying something, don't you? As for why it should be deleted-- several above have claimed it is not unmaintainable, and this list does not match any of the points listed on "what wikipedia is not" as linked in the original complaint. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents has nothing on this really, but Wikipedia:What's in, what's out has consensus for listing ALL geography and ALL demography items; while the article in question matches neither, it is somewhat a combination of the two, and so prior consensus seems to support keeping this article as well. --Vanchuck 10:05, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I used it to find the ZIP codes for my city that I didn't know already, that I inserted into its article. I find it as a necessity. -- Riffsyphon1024 10:07, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. It would be nice to have a single list of all postcodes/zip codes/whatever. I just don't think Wikipedia is the right place for such a list. Miss Pippa 10:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's very convenient to have such lists, and Wikipedia is a very convenient place to keep them. --Angr 13:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep.--Centauri 06:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I see no downside to keeping such information which is useful and notable. Capitalistroadster 11:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I also see no downside to providing the information on Wikipedia. Some people might find it useful or interesting, and if some people don't, they don't have to read it. Wikipedia has all kinds of lists of things, including list of cities. If there is a list of cities, why not a list of zip codes? If someone put up an article with a list of all phone book entries in the entire world, then I can understand deleting it, but I don't think a list of zip codes is necessarily too large of a list. I do suggest perhaps putting up a warning, that the information may not be up to date, and listing the date the page was last updated. Q0 05:47, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's nice to have a list like that. If it isn't updated, then the article should state so explicitly. Ethereal 05:53, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the United States Postal Service. Let them maintain the zip code directory, and let's us maintain an encyclopedia. Jonathunder 06:07, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Comment: After the first VfD discussion (Oct 2003), this was moved to Wikisource. The decision was challenged and rediscussed on the same page (Nov 2003). It was proposed a (third?) time in March 2004. See Wikipedia talk:Do lists of postal codes belong on Wikipedia?. That discussion was never closed. No decision to keep or delete was made. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The downside is the considerable difficulty and labor cost involved in keeping these articles verifiable and safe from subtle vandalism. If there were no easily available alternative, I would argue to keep, but there are many resources available (which we already have links to) that answer the same questions. As Calton noted in the nomination, the only new information is the organizational scheme and the map - both of which are already in the main Zip code article. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Definite keep. --Gene_poole 02:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or Move to wikisource - utter madness to maintain this info manually - info such as this is what databases and search engines are for Drstuey 10:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Please Keep (it somewhere). It's nice to know that such a list exists to be found somewhere in cyberspace. If the only concern from those who are voting to delete is that the information is date sensitive then just add "last revised" date stamps, or something similar. 68.50.14.227 09:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(P.S., that would be "last revised" date stamps per zip code, state, or whatever partition is most convenient) 68.50.14.227 10:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Impossible, unmaintainable list. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Keep. The list and map on the main page are useful, but the sub-pages are impossible to maintain and protect from vandalism. --Carnildo 23:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful information. Wiki is not paper. --Oarias 23:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A lot of people have put work into it. It's almost done, and it's interesting. As far as the info being other places, lost of the info is in other places. All the congress people can be found on congress' website. What about List of North American area codes? Let's delete that too.Saopaulo1
  • Delete List of North American area codes? Sounds good. --Carnildo 09:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• An obvious keep. --GRider\^talk 20:54, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 09:04 Z

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:06, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not notable. Delete. I removed his entry from 1986 already. Note that there is a talk page to remove if this is removed.-gadfium 08:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 13:01, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Zzyzx11 18:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable yet, promo. Megan1967 23:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 18:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Patent vanity. Edeans 22:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Advertisment for a unnotable conference--nixie 08:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• But where else are you going to meet walking, ass-kicking trees? Oh...this is something else. Delete. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 17:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Zzyzx11 18:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless independent interest is documented - David Gerard 13:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:07, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MMORPG beta, see also Face of Mankind which I have also listed.--nixie 09:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advert, not notable. Still in beta-testing. Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Come back when beta-testing is over. utcursch | talk 13:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable yet. Zzyzx11 18:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until verifiable evidence is supplied of anyone else caring - David Gerard 12:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Personal travel notes, would be very difficult to extract useful encyclopedic information out of this one--nixie 09:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. utcursch | talk 13:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Zzyzx11 18:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This appears to be a copy of the Project Gutenberg version of "The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction", copyright 1827. Which means that it isn't a copyvio, but a description of housing almost 200 years old is hardly appropriate unless it specifically says that this is what they looked like 200 years ago. See the Google search
• Delete. POV, plagiarism. Gamaliel 19:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 23:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline - plausibly useful, but not in this form - David Gerard 13:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this pagie]] 09:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• How many members does this site have? Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • It has an Alexa ranking of 152,952, and 21 other sites link there--nixie 11:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. Are we to be a list of internet sites? Me thinks not; search engines exist to find sites, and their own "About" pages serve to describe them. I believe phenomena of this sort must have had a palpable impact on society (or even a large subdivision, like "IT specialists") to become encyclopedic. BTW, is it just me or are there an awful lot of VfDs today? HyperZonk^talk 16:50, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks notability. Zzyzx11 18:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory. No reason provided for setting aside "web directory entry" assessment. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:52, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless independently verified - David Gerard 13:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pag.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Warcraft III. Deathphoenix 05:06, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A map for warcraft III, I think --nixie 09:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge anything useful into Warcraft III and delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge -- into Warcraft III - Longhair | Talk 11:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see how merging this info would be useful in the Warcraft III article. It's just one scenario map of many. DaveTheRed 22:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Warcraft III. Megan1967 23:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. - SimonP 01:07, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge. Probably the most popular scenario for Warcraft III - a quick check on battle.net shows 10 or 20 visible games gathering players for this map right now. Could use a better description, though. Zetawoof 11:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Zetawoof's note suggests keep rather than merge - David Gerard 12:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge this article into Warcraft III and redirect this page to it. As for a reply to DaveTheRed, deleting info about DotA but leaving Warcraft III in is like deleting info about Counter-Strike and leaving information about Half-Life in, or to use a less game oriented analogy, leaving information about US Presidents in but deleting all info about Bush. Bush may be "just one" president "of many", but he is the one that is in the limelight as of right now. Similarly, DotA is the WC3 related thing right now. Expand this article, edit it, merge it, do whatever, but DotA is the most relevant thing to hardcore WC3 players right now, so don't delete it. Qwertyca 08:59, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non notable software--nixie 09:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. utcursch | talk 13:01, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Zzyzx11 18:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. ElBenevolente 19:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence supplied that anyone cares - David Gerard 13:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:11, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dragonball series that may, or may not exist, noone knows --nixie 10:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete lacks context. Non-informative. If the show's existence isn't verifiable it should go. Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. utcursch | talk 13:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Goku with the help of Benjamin Winograd? Suspected fanfic and/or Mary Sue. Delete. Radiant! 14:39, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any notable sources and references? Zzyzx11 18:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 23:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ComCat 02:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable fanfiction. — Gwalla | Talk 03:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notorious (as very much opposed to "notable") hoax. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 12:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dragon Ball AF doesn't even exist; it's a fan rumour that far too many people believe. Ketsy 23:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:13, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Advertisment, no real content--nixie 10:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability. -- Infrogmation 18:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any notable references? Zzyzx11 18:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've actually heard of this, but it is just one person's private conlang, with no following. — Gwalla | Talk 03:18, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• My Favourite Toy Conlang. Delete - David Gerard 12:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was SPEEDIED. jni 19:14, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) May i point out that Neil Briggs is infact the current Mr Bangor......he won the contest last week.....in second place was Richard Head and in 3rd was Michael Hunt

Now this looks like possible vanity. A 17-year-old crowned Mr Bangor 6 times? "Several ladys [sic] would like to get in him"? Sounds suspicious. — JIP | Talk 10:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Am I just in a bad mood (I usually vote keep, not delete on things) or is there something else? This page seems to be plain vanity. Sjakkalle 10:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Article appears to have been speedy-deleted. Would the referenced ladies like to "get in him" with strap-on genitalia, or did the author just fail to understand a bit of slang and reuse it? Barno 18:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adverstisment, sounds almost like it's been copied from a brochure--nixie 10:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. An ad that looks like it could be a copyvio. Zzyzx11 18:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - ad. - SimonP 01:04, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. Gazpacho 11:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, horrible ad - David Gerard 12:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Redirect to DVB. Deathphoenix 05:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MPEG format, is this widely used of notable for any reason?--nixie 10:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or Keep "wordwide standard forms of MPEG video". This one gets 25,100 google hits [8]. Kappa 14:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Ooops! That'll teach me to vote before the first cup of coffee! Not proprietary, this does seem to be the broadcast industry's favorite way of playing with the mpeg format. Very widely known with over 1 million Google hits, and the organization's web site ranks relatively highly for video encoding sites generally (it is in the mid-100,000s, much like mpeg.org and such standard sites). Still, I think it is a merge, but I'm a sound guy not a video guy. At best. This is an proprietary internal schema according to the article. HyperZonk^talk 16:51, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to MPEG-2. Zzyzx11 18:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or delete. Proprietary internal schemae for computer-graphics formats aren't WP-notable, whether wordwide or worldwide, unless the schema (not just the MPEG-2 or MPEG-3 standard) had industry-shaking or society-influencing significance. I don't frequent video-tech circles, but I've never heard "DVB ASI" (with any capitalization) discussed in any of the computer-tech forums I've read. In light of the DVB name on the preceding VfD entry, I'm suspicious of this item; I lean toward deleting unless evidence of real notability is provided. Barno 19:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Got more information. The DVB article gives evidence of notability and details for a number of DVB standards, but doesn't mention DVB ASI. Revised my vote to suggest merge to DVB, not to MPEG-2. Barno 17:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  If you frequented video tech circles you'd hear of it very quickly. [9] Gazpacho

• Merge to MPEG-2 or delete. Megan1967 23:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. (Well, I like merged articles!) Miss Pippa 10:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• A quick look at DVB should convince you that it is the proper merge target, not MPEG-2. DVB specifications are not proprietary in the usual sense. Gazpacho 11:09, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Badly named. Merge and redirect to DVB - David Gerard 12:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Final FYI to the admins: Most of what the article says is inaccurate. The special timing information that DVB adds to MPEG-2 data falls under a standard called DVB-MPEG. "ASI" describes only the electrical connection between a module that transmits or receives over a DVB network, and the device that uses that module. It is a feature of other standards, not a standard by itself. Gazpacho 08:07, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:16, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grade school teacher vanity page--nixie 10:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No achievements of note. Average Earthman 12:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable vanity non-encyclopedic. -- Infrogmation 18:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Zzyzx11 18:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. Megan1967 23:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 12:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 15:55, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Los Angeles local radio presenter--nixie 10:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No evidence that is in any way notable, not even mentioned on our article about his radio station. -- Infrogmation 18:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This one is legit. Though his morning show is relatively recent, he's a high-profile radio host in Los Angeles. If you go to the KABC radio website, you are first greeted with a splash page advertising "MacIntyre in the morning." His program is the principal venue in which candidates for mayor of LA have debated. He also has a history as a television writer. -- BTfromLA 18:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I have expanded the entry. BTfromLA 18:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • BTfromLA, I still do not understand how this local radio host is notable enough to be in Wikipedia. Please explain. Zzyzx11 19:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If we let him have his own article, then shouldn't we have other local radio hosts from across the world with similar credentials? Zzyzx11 19:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Is the standard national syndication? International broadcasting? A book written about you? It seems to me that a prominant and influential media figure in a social center like Los Angeles (or New York, Chicago, London...) is far more notable than a large percentage of the people and concepts I see entries for in Wikipedia. And, nowadays, much local radio (including KABC) is accessible over the web, so it need not remain opaque to people outside the region. While it's a local job, the number of local hosts with similar credentials is small--"morning drive time" at the ABC flagship station in Los Angeles is pretty much the top of the pyramid as far as local radio goes. And, yes, if he is allowed, similarly credetialed folks should be as well, of course. I see that his principal competitor, Bill Handel, is the subject of a stubby and poorly written article that should probably sink or swim with this one.
    • BTfromLA and everyone else, I guess my main question is what the criteria should be on local broadcasters. Clearly, someone in the New York designated market area is more notable than one in Glendive. But where do you draw the line on the 210 DMA's? Do you even draw a line? Zzyzx11 23:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd say the criterion would be independent third-party verifiability - David Gerard 02:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Keep. That's what I am thinking too. DMA should be at the bottom of out list of criteria. I apologize to everyone for letting my question make this VfD discussion stretch longer than it should have. Zzyzx11 21:38, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline keep - make strong keep if some verifiability is indicated - David Gerard 02:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This must come up a lot-is there some written guideline about what the minimum requirements for "notability" are in wikipedia? I'm not sure what "verification" means in this context... the fact that the guy is on the air daily on a major station during peak hours is easy to verify (look at http://kabc.com/). But there's a larger question of what qualifies for a Wikipedia article. If the standards are the same as a print enyclopedia, then I would agree with deleting this--McIntyre is not a historic figure. But those don't seem to be the standards in practice. For example, the Marvel comic book title The Avengers has a listing. Is that particular title "notable"? Further, there are more that 50 separate articles for "members" of the Avengers. Are all of them notable? By those standards, large-market radio talk hosts seem prominent indeed. (And a quick search reveals many articles for smaller-market radio brodcasters, e.g. Todd Friel, Mary Lucia, Ed Sciaky, Mark Wheat...) So I'm confused about what the relevant principals are for making this judgment. BTfromLA 02:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Radio personality on the air in one of the country's largest markets. Surely millions of listeners in the country's second-largest city have heard of him. Mike H 04:05, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes he's quite notable around where I live, can be heard by well over twenty million people, and judging by the way they drive, probably is. Antandrus 04:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC).
• Keep. This should be easy. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep people with their own shows at peak times on major stations. Kappa 10:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He's as notable as any other local radio personality, and if they deserve their own articles, why shouldn't he? Deleting him would just be the thin end of the wedge and soon we'd end up getting rid of all of them... Miss Pippa 10:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable South California radio personality. Capitalistroadster 11:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. LA is the number two US radio market behind New York. Huge audience. Morning drive is the major part of the day on any station. I've done it as a fill-in here in my neck of the woods and briefly had my own morning show before a radio consultant thought it was best to remove all on-air talent and go fully automated...but that's a story for another day. Station tanked in the ratings soon after. Ah, karma. - Lucky 6.9 22:42, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. Deathphoenix 05:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A VfD incorrectly submitted by 195.10.5.6 on 4 Mar 2005. Looks like band vanity. -- Longhair | Talk 10:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- band vanity. Longhair | Talk 10:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Needs evidence of notablility. Zzyzx11 19:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 23:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty much defines band vanity. --Woohookitty 18:35, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Clean up. The article as it stands is not enyclopedic, but the band itself is a well known crust punk band (at least as well known as any DIY punk band gets -- are only bands metioned on MTV notible, surely I hope not?). millerc 15:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems notable. —Xezbeth 15:42, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - real band with records. Allmusic.com is no good for anything outside the US - David Gerard 12:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep in its current form. Deathphoenix 05:11, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article states that the band doesn't exist. Then neither should the article. Radiant! 10:58, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• • The nominator asserts that he doesn't appreciate third-party additions of pastel boxes that wrongly paraphrase his statements into his nominations. Radiant! 13:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- band vanity. - Longhair | Talk 11:36, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Hmm I don't see how saying "There's no a band named Mob Rulez" can be construed as vanity. Actually there is a band called Mob Rules [10], and they've released 4 studio albums, if anyone wanted to make an article on them. Kappa 14:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In that case, suspected attack page (aka reverse vanity). Ok, stubify and list on wanted articles? Radiant! 14:35, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it's just a mistake. Could be stubified, could also be deleted and revert to the red links from whence it came. Kappa 15:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, article does not establish notability, possible vandalism. Megan1967 23:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Reverse vanity, huh? That's a new one. —RaD Man (talk) 07:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. it seems most people are fine with it being changed to an article about the real band "Mob Rules" [11] so I'm going to turn it into a stub about them as opp. to the "reverse vanity" ;-) that's there at the moment. -- Lochaber 18:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion Joyous 22:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Dicdef of a phrase, "God bless Malawi". Should we delete, or is it worthy of transwikefaction? Transwikication? Whatever. Radiant! 11:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Dicdef of a typoed phrase. It's supposed to be Mlungu dalitsani Malawi, which is the national anthem of Malawi. Raven42 12:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictionary definition. Megan1967 23:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a sandbox entry, also incorrect title and dictdef. RJFJR 02:29, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, sandboxing - David Gerard 12:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 22:46, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

A VfD originally submitted back on 24 Dec 2004 by Mike1971inter. Original VfD tag was {{vanity}}. -- Longhair | Talk 11:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Never heard of him, I strongly suspect delusional fantasy. The complete lack of any mention of years in the article is a bit of a giveaway. A quick google suggests the most notable Jamie Chapmans playing association football in the UK are a sunday leage player and a kid on Knowle FC's under 13s squad. Average Earthman 13:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable, probable nonsense. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I would have said keep, but the lack of verifiability and the hoax concerns say delete - David Gerard 12:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Deathphoenix 05:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

While the term has some economic significance, it is basically a circular dicdef. Radiant! 09:57, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I am considering this debate to be unresolved, and left open. Therefore, I am going to relist it through the VFD process to let it conclude. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This is a real and significant concept that needs to be covered. The examples make it somewhat more useful than a mere definition. Keep, or put a short definion at NIE and redirect to Newly industrialized countries. Kappa 10:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep though needs to be expanded. It is an important economic concept and is seperate from NICs. -- Lochaber 15:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I apologise, after further investigation it would seem that these days the terms NIE and NIC are quite interchangeable, this had not been the case when I studied Economics. I would argue that industrialising and industrialised are different in that an article about NIE's would include discussion on how the economies change/industrialise, the concept if you will, while NIC would be giving cases where this has happened, However to avoid confusion I think it might be best to go with Kappa's suggestion - short def at NIE and redirect to NIC. Then expanded NIC article to include reference to indicators -- Lochaber 17:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Simpler, I would have thought, to delete and replace with redirect to NIC, and add "also known as Newly Industrializing Economy" somewhere in the first paragraph of NIC. HowardB 17:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just think that it's a bit more complicated than that... the relationship is more that a "Newly Industrializing Economy / Country" becomes a "Newly Industrialized Economy / Countries". However I think the main problem is that the article at NIC is actually about Newly Industrializing Countries rather than Newly Industrialized Countries. However, realistically I don't know that anyone is going to correct this or that they even require seperate articles, especially given that both states are transitional. In my opinion the best situation would be if the two articles were merged under "Newly Industrializing Economy" (or Country) and the fact mentioned that "Country" and "Economy" are interchangable (add redirects), as far as I'm aware NIE was the original OECD term, though if anyone knows better then please say so. What does anyone think of that suggestion? --

Lochaber 10:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable economic term. Capitalistroadster 11:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it's an OECD definition - that means it's real and people might actually come looking for it - David Gerard 12:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:45, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Google says it's Power Rangers related, but I defy you to tell that from reading the article. I'd have slapped it with a {{nonsense}} tag; as is, it's been sitting untouched with {{cleanup}} for a month. It should at least be redlinked to make way for a real article, though with only 49 displayed google hits, including a lot that aren't relevant, I don't think it deserves even that. —Korath (Talk) 12:35, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to list of power rangers enemies or friends or whatever? Radiant! 13:31, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I wouldn't mind if someone actually wrote an article about a Power Rangers character, but this isn't an article, it is an inarticulate ramble. It's not even linked to from any other Power Rangers article, so it seems useless to me. -- Infrogmation 18:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete That article didn't make sense to me :( Tygar 19:28, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Martg76 20:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Completely incoherent. Mighty Mantis attack with kung fu dodge explode attack is strong yes? Bye. — Gwalla | Talk 03:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's nothing here worth saving or merging. Miss Pippa 10:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. Gamaliel 18:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete. Redirect to Power Rangers would be more useful - David Gerard 12:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. --Oarias 00:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't find anything about this on google, and even if this is true it's only of local interest. Xezbeth 12:36, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Almost certainly a hoax. Kidlington's only current claim to fame seems to be that it is the largest village in the U.K., as they refuse to be made a town. HyperZonk^talk 17:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax concerns and no verification supplied - David Gerard 12:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. pending deletion. Joyous 22:43, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Most likely a hoax, see 1873 Kidlington Riots also. Xezbeth 12:40, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems to be a hoax based on extensive historical research (!) on Kidlington, the largest village in the U.K. HyperZonk^talk 17:04, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no verifiability supplied to alleviate hoax concerns - David Gerard 12:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. I count 18 clear "delete" votes, 12 clear "keep" votes (2 anons and 1 probable troll discounted) and 2 "merge" votes. While there is a clear majority to delete, there is not the overwhelming concensus necessary for deletion. The decision defaults to keep in some form.

Noting both the majority to delete, the current state of the article and the fact that "redirects" do not destroy history, I am going to be bold and merge and redirect this article. Rossami (talk) 05:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a high school, so I'm just going to say delete and see what consensus is this week. —Korath (Talk) 12:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Very well, delete. Radiant! 13:29, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep then Kappa 14:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. BEEFSTEW score of 2 (A,D). A high school where there are sports teams and clubs. No apparent news events, notable alumni, or historical significance. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 15:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless Wikipedia has become the Great Catalogue of American Primary and Secondary Schools when I wasn't looking. Arkyan 18:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable high school. DaveTheRed 22:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. How much more generic and/or uninformative can you get? Arkyan brings up an excellent point, by the way. - Lucky 6.9 00:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a rather weak beefstew. Jonathunder 01:13, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable - David Gerard 02:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Utterly unremarkable high school. — Gwalla | Talk 03:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There is no reason we can't have an article on every high school on Earth. --Zero 04:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Lucky, generic and uniformative. Non-notable. Gamaliel 07:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The only useful bit of information in the entire thing is that Bellevue, Nebraska appears to have two high schools. This can be mentioned in the Bellevue, Nebraska article. Oh look, it already is. Average Earthman 23:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' - SimonP 00:59, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No potential to become encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Carrp | Talk 03:50, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.--Centauri 06:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve --BaronLarf 17:19, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Don't list without cause listed in the deletion policy, please. James F. (talk) 17:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Please don't try to cramp Wikipedia's potential. Wincoote 02:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has potential to become encyclopedic. --Andylkl 07:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable high school. --Holdek 09:29, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in the spirit of the recently sanctioned "high school keep week" on Wikipedia. --GRider\^talk 23:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just like all other school articles.--Gene_poole 02:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. Thank god User:GRider didn't tell me about this one, I'd hate to think that my vote might actually be ignored because someone used my talk page. —RaD Man (talk) 08:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I see nothing special about it. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:09, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Hey, Bellevue! I've actually been there, but I haven't heard of this high school. Nothing to distinguish it. Delete. Isomorphic 22:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I say Keep
• Delete Doersn't contribute, unless your specifically from Bellvue, Nebraska.Gnrlotto 01:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Schoolcrufta delenda est. Edeans 22:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge material into Bellevue, Nebraska, delete this. Utterly unexceptional high school. No need at all for a separate article. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but expand. --Oarias 00:10, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Bellevue, Nebraska article. -- Infrogmation 16:42, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep this article. Yuckfoo 20:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Rossami (talk)

Nonsense. — JIP | Talk 12:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Incomplete VfD nomination, but the relevant page seems to already have been deleted, which kind of proves it was nonsense to begin with.
• 12:45, 4 Mar 2005 Utcursch deleted Henrik lundberg (patent nonsense)
  • Speedy deleted as nonsense, which it was. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the contact details, and I've formatted the thing, but it feels quite hoaxy. Can someone verify? Mgm|^(talk) 13:04, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Zero google results for "sacris sacrosanctus". Binadot 13:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Secret societies are unverifiable, and thus, non-encyclopedic. Android79 14:08, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Unless some verification and evidence of notability surfaces, Delete. -- Infrogmation 18:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, whether hoax or real, for reason cited by Android79. Barno 19:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 23:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A secret society with a public email address for "New membership Queries"!?! Verifiable or not, this is still a hoax! Miss Pippa 10:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

The subject is interesting, and indeed already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. This article, however, is merely a request for "a number of core hackers" to "build a repository which would help developers to contribute system software for mobile devices". That belongs on a msg board somewhere, not here. delete. Radiant! 13:28, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• If the information is already contained elsewhere, a redirect would be good. --L33tminion | (talk) 13:54, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• This is a request for an article. Put on requested articles and delete until created. RJFJR 02:25, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not Sourceforge. Gazpacho 11:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. ComCat 04:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "not notable"? Huh??
• Delete and add to requested articles - David Gerard 15:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete as a copyvio. (Currently pending due to block-compress errors) Rossami (talk) 05:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's an importer of furniture fittings in Thailand. Low google presence, doesn't seem particularly notable. Radiant! 14:20, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep companies listed on the stock exchange of Thailand. Kappa 15:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, company promo. Megan1967 23:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. - SimonP 01:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn, promo. Edeans 22:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Moot point since it's a copyvio [12]. Rossami (talk) 00:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was copyvio. —Korath (Talk) 17:45, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

More high school and primary school stuff. Delete. Radiant! 14:23, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. School districts are more notable than schools. Wikipedia has articles for other school districts. DaveTheRed 22:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no listed criterion per the policy, no good reason to delete - David Gerard 02:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, very informative. ComCat 02:30, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio. Gamaliel 07:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Another pointless deletioncruft nomination. Keep.
• Keep. James F. (talk) 17:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep . Wincoote 02:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• More deletioncruft VFD nonsense. Meets none of the deletion criteria. Keep.--Centauri 09:12, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite to correct copyvio. --GRider\^talk 23:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Schoolcrufta delenda est. Edeans 22:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Since it was copyvio'd and there is no temp article, there is really nothing to vote on here. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:15, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. School districts are in. Mark Richards 11:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Copyvio. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 22:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what this sub-page is doing here, but everything is already covered in Monty Hall problem. Ergo, delete. Radiant! 14:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a copyvio process leftover. 23skidoo 16:06, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• You should probably have checked "What links here". That would have led you to Talk:Monty Hall problem, where the purpose of the page is explained. In case you're wondering, I got tired of waiting in vain for any feedback, and simply added it directly to the article. It can be dispensed with, as it's served its purpose (or more accurately, it's too late for it to serve its purpose.) Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Monmouth Park Racetrack. —Korath (Talk) 17:47, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

An association that takes care of the Monmouth park race track, located in Monmouth country. Should probably merge to either. Radiant! 14:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Monmouth Park Racetrack. Tygar 19:31, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 23:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The MPR article already mentions them sufficiently. Gamaliel 23:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Monmouth Park Racetrack. --SPUI (talk) 23:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge are redirect - SimonP 01:01, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect - David Gerard 15:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 06:01, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dictdef. Usage. Etymology. Wiktionary. (While there's already an entry, this is more complete.) —Korath (Talk) 14:36, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Tranwiki automagically. HyperZonk^talk 17:29, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. Megan1967 23:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary. -Sean Curtin 02:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Wiktionary - David Gerard 15:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Keep, but we still have a merge tag on the article. I will merge this with Inter Rail. Since there was absolutely no wish to delete I will keep everything in the article. Once again, I am sorry for nominating this one... Sjakkalle 15:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article would probably be great at wikitravel. I have checked the deletion policy, and it says that such articles ought to be listed here. I think there ought to be a Votes to move page but as long as there isn't I will abide by the policy. Anyway, this appears to be a travel guide, and not an encyclopedic article. My vote is transwiki to WikiTravel. Sjakkalle 14:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Lots of young Europeans go Interrailing. OK this srticle isn't great but it could be improved, to become encylopedic, with information about the history of interrail, motivations of the founders, reference to interail in popular culture etc. There's definatley more to write about than just a travcel article, whioch would only cover the practicalities of interrailling. Grinner 14:52, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I promise to reconsider in a few days if the article is rewritten. I do not really like seeing fairly good stuff being deleted, and that is why I would like to see this at Wikitravel. Sjakkalle 15:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How many people use Wikitravel compared to Wikipedia? This one isn't anywhere close to being marginal. Keep Wincoote 02:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Interrail is not only a pass for travelling or a kind of travel guide , it is a travel culture of the european youth. Interrailing is the word synonimous for traveling by train or doing a trip trought Europe. Like rent a car or using a bus for traveling. I think Interrail is a word wich should be available in wikipedia AND wikitravel. PetevanBoo 15:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• OK, how is this: The person who created this article has made a new, encyclopedic one: Inter Rail. I suggest that we a) Transwiki this article to WikiTravel, and (b) move Inter Rail here. How's that? That is kind of like a keep is it not? Sjakkalle 15:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Or rename Inter Rail to Interrail like it is spelled right. PetevanBoo 15:35, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge them together and keep in wikipedia. Interrail passes are extremely important to European travel, and they get 289,000 google hits. [13] Kappa 15:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Wikitravel uses the Creative Commons license, so cannot take GFDL material. (It's also not associated with us, so far as I'm aware.) —Korath (Talk) 16:18, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge Inter Rail into it. Important for the vacation experience of hundreds of thousands of young Europeans. Martg76 20:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep --SPUI (talk) 23:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. James F. (talk) 17:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• So WikiTravel cannot accept articles from wikipedia? Ok then, that eliminates the possibility for transwiki. In that case I change my vote to merge with material from "Inter Rail", which I think may make a fair encyclopedic article. Of course, an outright deletion is not in order. My nomination was because travel guides are not appropriate for Wikipedia and at that time, the first entry on the "Problems that may require deletion" table on the Wikipedia:Deletion policy page provided listing on the vfd page as the appropriate remedy. I see now that this has now been changed from "not suitable for Wikipedia" to "no potential to become encyclopedic", and I would not have nominated this if this had been the text at that time. Sjakkalle 09:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• According to current policy and precedent there's no reason to move or delete and every reason to keep this article.--Centauri 09:16, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Rename if current spelling is not correct.--Gene_poole 02:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly rename. Its a popular travel thing in a place called Europe (did I see that for deletion a few weeks ago? I'm sure it's not notable!) Mark Richards 11:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello again. I have made the following observations.

1. Wikitravel already has an Inter Rail article which is a lot larger than this one.
2. "Inter Rail", and not "Interrail" is the correct spelling.

So merge is definitely still my vote, it should be merged into the article titled Inter Rail, "Interrail" being the incorrect spelling should probably be a redirect. I am sorry that I nominated this in the first place, I regret doing so. Of course the title clearly has potential to become encyclopedic. Sjakkalle 16:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Inter Rail - David Gerard 15:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge tags have been slapped on this article (not by me). Can an administrator PLEASE close this debate so that this can be done.? Sjakkalle 10:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Possible vanity. -- Longhair | Talk 14:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No vote for now Keep. Appears to be a full professor at ASU. Has an 11-page CV full of publications dating back to 1972. The article itself is pretty useless, but this professor might be notable enough for inclusion now establishes notability. Android79 17:36, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC); vote change Android79 03:56, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, possible vanity. Megan1967 23:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not establish notability. Gamaliel 07:21, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Article has been updated, please review. Thank you.
• Keep. Article has now established notability. Thank you Capitalistroadster 12:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Updated article establishes notability well above the bar. Alarm 23:26, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thank you for reconsidering the article. Further modifications will include a list of significant Chinese works, a list of significant articles published, and an overview of Prof. West's personal contributions to the field of sinology (major views and themes explored in works, etc.) Iluvchineselit
• Keep - David Gerard 15:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Advertising. Kosebamse 15:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wikispam. Delete it till it glows. —Korath (Talk) 16:22, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Shopwhale ius the exact same content - it has both a delete and a speedy-delete tag on it!
• Delete. ElBenevolente 19:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - ad. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - David Gerard 15:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:37, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Advertising. Kosebamse 15:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wikispam. Delete it till it glows. —Korath (Talk) 16:22, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ElBenevolente 19:03, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tygar 19:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - ad. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:50, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advert. jni 14:09, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad - David Gerard 15:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous.

I count 8 clear "delete" votes, 5 and a half "keep" votes (one probable troll vote discounted) and one clear "abstain". Failing to reach a clear concensus to delete, the decision defaults to "keep" for now.

Noting that there is a solid majority to delete and that in similar situations the community has often recommended that the article be "merged and redirected" to the article about the relevant community, I am going to be bold and do so. Rossami (talk) 06:12, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Elementary school. It has one resource class, and one self-contained classroom. Delete. Radiant! 15:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, BEEFSTEW score of negative 3 (ABD elementary). —Korath (Talk) 16:29, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Infrogmation 18:24, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable school. DaveTheRed 23:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable school. Gamaliel 07:20, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This school is notable and was recently named a Red Carpet school by the South Carolina State Department of Education. Arguably much more notable than the average minor Pokemon monster or character that makes a one time appearance in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. --GRider\^talk 23:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Red Carpet" school? What does that information mean? How many schools get that label? Is that really a mark of notability? Gamaliel 15:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Just like all other schools.--Gene_poole 02:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not sufficiently notable in an encyclopedic sense. Jonathunder 05:04, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Half keep, as I believe they say on Wikipedia. —RaD Man (talk) 11:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Schoolcrufta delenda est. Edeans 22:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Much beter than most of these. Normally I vote to delete school articles, but in this case weak keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:18, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a school. Mark Richards 11:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - decent article, verifiable, there's no sensible reason to delete it - David Gerard 15:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. If the "Red Carpet" moniker can be expanded on, this might be a keep. There are too many unanswered questions. - Lucky 6.9 17:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please. Yuckfoo 20:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was ambiguous. After a thorough review of the material, I agree that this is original research and should be removed from Wikipedia. While the article is well written, the first two-thirds of the article are rote recitations of standard theory. The hypothesis about music's effects are unsubstantiated by evidence. My personal reaction is that it appears that someone dropped their college paper into Wikipedia. Accordingly, I am going to exercise my discretion and decline to transwiki this into either Wikibooks or WikiSource. I will, however, have no objections if someone else does and have even left a note on the author's talk page offering to help him/her do so if asked. Rossami (talk) 06:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Psychological essay. While I did enjoy reading it, I'm afraid it qualifies as original research. Radiant! 15:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to WikiSource. Lovely essay, but original research as noted. HyperZonk^talk 17:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, POV original research. Megan1967 22:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - original research. - SimonP 01:01, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Well-referenced original research. Might be one to transwiki to Wikibooks, rather than just kill - David Gerard 15:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 22:24, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Computer company that gets about 750 googles. Not notable enough in that business. Radiant! 15:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable enough. Zzyzx11 19:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - press release or equivalent. (WP:NOT - not objective, unbiased, or relevant) -- Cyrius|✎ 03:46, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline delete - David Gerard 15:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:24, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Famous composer with unknown first name, and after he died all his music disappeared. Doesn't google. Likely a hoax. Radiant! 15:12, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Probably hoax - nothing in my Grove dictionary of music... Nick04 16:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is this a hoax? I find one Google result on a trivia site, and nothing else. I would expect to find more if it was real. Unless someone in Boston can go look up old newspapers that attest to this, I'm afraid I have to assume hoax. HyperZonk^talk 17:34, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Probable hoax, offers no evidence to the contrary. BTfromLA 18:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax or not, it's an orphan lacking significant information. -- Infrogmation 18:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, probable hoax, insufficient notability even if verified as true. Barno 19:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the supposed fact that his first name is unknown clinches it for me that this is a hoax. If he was truly a performed composer, someone surely would have jotted his name down someplace. This was supposedly the late 1800s, and newspapers and such would have recorded it. If we were talking about a figure from the first few centures AD, I could see how part of a name might be lost, but in the 1890s? I'm not buyin' it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, hoax. Megan1967 22:58, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no reference, made by minor/suspect contributor User:Pepsidude WpZurp 05:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, possible BJAODN. Bearcat 07:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless you could find a way to merge it with P.D.Q. Bach. Edeans 22:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not good enough for BJAODN - David Gerard 15:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:23, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Poet that is now eight years old. Come back when you're older. Radiant! 15:26, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• • The nominator asserts that he doesn't appreciate third-party additions of pastel boxes that wrongly paraphrase his statements into his nominations. Radiant! 13:37, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Well, if the 8-year-old was a celebrated poet, that would certainly be notable. Unfortunately, I can find nothing that attests to the existence of Mustehssun Iqbal (though apparently poetics runs in the Iqbal family). HyperZonk^talk 17:38, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only info the article gives on the subject was that he was born at a particular time and place (which is nice background to have if the subject ever does anything more notable, but hardly a notable achievement itself). -- Infrogmation 18:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Did he spend three and a half years in suspended animation, then? According to the way I was taught, 2005 minus 1993 equals 12. Substracting the difference between March and August gives about eleven and a half years. Nevertheless, Mustehssun is definitely non-notable. Delete. — JIP | Talk 16:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As you well know, there are three kinds of people in this world: those who can count, and those who cannot :) Radiant! 13:40, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Sheesh. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:49, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete - David Gerard 15:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:22, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Open source program with far too few googles to be anywhere near famous. Radiant! 15:29, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Freshmeat says vitality 0.00%, popularity 0.13%. Their own web site says they are still in deep alpha, as the source code "... is still very incomplete and unstable." Please come again when this software is completed and in use. HyperZonk^talk 17:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not Freshmeat. The software does not yet exist in any meaningful sense of the word and much of the article is straight copy/paste of PR material off the developers' site. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until anyone else actually uses the software - David Gerard 15:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 15:59, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Are individual museums notable? Other than the Louvre and similarly famous institutes? This one has items from Roman excavations, but then again so do nearly all history museums. What is consensual here? Radiant! 15:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Generally, I think that most museums are probably notable unless strong evidence to the contrary can be presented. I don't currently have any criteria in mind, but given time and exempla I could probably develop a reasonably credible filter for exclusion. In the case of museums, note that I would tend towards nearly complete inclusiveness. HyperZonk^talk 17:49, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• The museum may very well be notable, but the current substub is worse than having a red link. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 18:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'd say Merge into the appropriate city page, but I can't find Alba city Spain. — RJH 18:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's at Albacete. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 18:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the city page. I might not object to a proper article on a third-tier museum, but this isn't a proper article. -- Infrogmation 18:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As it has now been expanded into an article, I change my vote to Keep. -- Infrogmation 19:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've expanded the article quite a bit (it was a single-sentence substub), adding info about the museum's location, history, and contents. (More content is welcome; much of the web info on this museum is in Spanish and I don't trust myself to translate.) Museums are often Wikiworthy, though I agree that there was no way to tell this from the original article. Incidentally, after the dust settles from VfD it might make sense to rename the article to Museo Provincial de Albacete or Albacete Provincial Museum. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Individual museums are far more notable and far more verifiable than Pokemon supporting characters or Ashlee Simpson. I don't know enough about this museum to judge its notability either among residents of the region or among people interested in a particular field. No vote. Barno 19:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all museums. Grue 20:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • So, you wouldn't object if I wrote an article on the Spam Museum? :o) (Keep this article.) Android79 21:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't mind an article on the SPAM museum. It looks like it gets a significant amount of tourists. Keep this, and all museums. DaveTheRed 23:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I've got no comment on this particular case, but wanted to disagree with the notion of "keep all museums". This would lead to museums having a much lower bar than almost any other institution, and would lead to the inclusion of some genuinely un-notable things. The Western Springs, Illinois (Chicago suburb--about 10,000 people) Historical Society has a museum--has it's own building and everything--but is clearly non-notable. There needs to be some bar for museums, as there is for other institutions. Meelar (talk) 00:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all museums with their own buildings (suggested bar) Kappa 00:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - David Gerard 02:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all museums? No. Keep this one? Yes. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a notable, well established museum. — Gwalla | Talk 03:41, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-done Ten of Alltrades. Capitalistroadster 11:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep . Wincoote 02:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all museums. This nomination doesn't comply with Wikipedia's deletion policies. --Gene_poole 02:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, now a decent article, and certainly potential here for more. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:21, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT. dbenbenn | talk 02:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Software music editing is something recent, it appeared in latest 80's, almost like a useless tool". Strange essay. I'm not even sure the topic could be anything more than a dicdef or a redirect to the existent list of music editing programs. Radiant! 15:31, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to virtual studio. This is a heavily POV article using a term that is not generally considered the best (make no mistake, the term is used but it is generally only used by people who are not in the industry). Also, there are several factual errors in the article (the top price of $600 brought me particular amusement ... if only the best systems were that cheap!). HyperZonk^talk 17:53, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Error-ridden article without any content we need to save. If the community feels this imprecise and less-used term should be redirected to an existing WP article, it would be better done from scratch than to keep this in the page history. Barno 19:28, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV essay, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 22:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No redirect - "music editor" could refer to a person rather than a software package. -Sean Curtin 02:53, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to virtual studio. Nothing worth merging. — Gwalla | Talk 03:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect No insight to content. WpZurp 05:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect or delete or something - David Gerard 15:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:14, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

The center is located in a shoebox, and appoints people who make derivations of Murphy's Law. Sounds rather nonsensical to me. Radiant! 15:32, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoax, possibly to validate some codswallop that someone posted in some forums (based on the Google results). HyperZonk^talk 17:56, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - would have speedy deleted over that "shoebox" comment alone. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Sounds a lot like my local council. Sadly however, delete.--Gene_poole 01:17, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, drivel - David Gerard 15:27, 9 Mar 2005

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge with Flåklypa Grand Prix. Sjakkalle 10:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fictional racecar from a puppet movie. Radiant! 16:27, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Relisted due to lack of consensus. There is not enough consensus to do anything with this article. This debate is considered to be continuing, and has been relisted on VfD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with the movie (Il Tempo Gigante) or keep. Wikipedia has plenty of space. Kappa 19:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the movie (which is Flåklypa Grand Prix), which is currently woefully stubby. —Korath (Talk) 16:33, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep much like Herbie the Love Bug or Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, the car itself is more or less the star of the movie, which is widely considered the most popular/successful Norwegian film of all time (the more common title is "Pinchcliffe Grand Prix"). It's been made into toys, models, and at least two full-sized drivable versions. If a similar car from an American or British movie were VfDed, there's be overwhelming Keep votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:45, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Flåklypa Grand Prix, as both articles are quite short. -- Infrogmation 18:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge for now. The redirect should keep anyone from getting lost, and the movie article is woefully stubby. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Flåklypa Grand Prix. I would have voted Delete without Starblind's added information. I was a fan of Herbie the Love Bug and Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, but I had never heard of this car or the movie under any of its titles. Barno 19:34, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:Lack of consensus is the same as consensus to keep. RickK 19:54, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Miss Pippa 10:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 15:27, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Pending deletion. Joyous 22:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Original essay with a neologistic name. I'd say merge if not for the fact that all content found here is already better explained in other sections. Radiant! 09:46, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

This nomination has too few votes. It is the belief of this particular administrator that this debate is still on-going. Due to the change in how votes for deletion is processed, it has been readded so that a consensus may be reached. -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Nothing in this article distinguishes between neo-catastrophism and the traditional 19th-century concept of catastrophism. Re-write if it's a meaningful term, delete otherwise. - TB 12:42, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
• Delete. Not terribly well-written essay. Android79 17:01, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but a weak one. Appears to be attested to, including references in some college courses. Still only 571 Google hits, however. I would agree with both of the above that it is in need of a substantial rewrite. HyperZonk^talk 18:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV original essay. Megan1967 23:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original essay, neologism. The funny thing is that I think it's a valid and noteworthy observation. There really was a uniformitarian orthodoxy prior to Luis Alvarez' presentation of the asteroid impact theory. Some may remember Immanuel Velikovsky, a nutjob with who wrote a book or books in the 1950s, Worlds in Collision being the title of one of them, full of cockamamie theories about how all sorts of BIblical miracles were explained by planets randomly knocking other planets to leave their orbits at the right time so that they could part the Red Sea, cause the Flood, etc. I think the manna from heaven that fed the Israelites in the wilderness was supposed to be edible hydrocarbons from a comet's tail or something. Anyway, he was scorned by the scientific establishment, in part because it was just felt that the universe didn't work that way. Geological events were the results of slow, continuous processes. Then Alvarez came along, and my first thought was "Wow! Velikovsky stuff!" Now we live in a world where all sorts of things are thought be caused by asteroids smacking into planets. There really has been a change in our world view. But such comments probably belong in Uniformitarianism and/or Catastrophism and should be cautious and well-sourced. Well, there's my little original POV essay for the day. But at least I'm not spouting it into an article in the main namespace. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Josh Cherry 03:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Dpbsmith. It might be nice to have an interesting article on modern catastopist theories, but this isn't it. Miss Pippa 10:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete' This is handled at Catastrophism, Immanuel Velikovsky, Tollmann's hypothetical bolide Tunguska Event etc. none of which are linked here. They are more in the nature of encyclopedia reports than essays. This ne is purely a pwrsinal essay. --Wetman 11:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Dpbsmith (and frankly I'm amazed we don't have a Worlds in Collision article yet; Velikovsky is always good for a laugh) Antandrus 17:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this drivel. Please. Edeans 23:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What makes it Neo? I don't see the relevance. Catastrophes happen. If this were supposed to be in contrast to Biblical catastrophes and in support of rare events that drive evolution, then it should be kept. I don't see any value to the current article. --Aranae 08:05, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Catastrophism to discourage recreation - David Gerard 15:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vsmith 17:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus; thus, the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 18:09, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Premature article on an as-yet unreleased game. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:04, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Beta-testing isn't particularly immature to make a topic; it's slated to come out next quarter. A Google search turns up 82,700 hits. Keep --SpiritGlyph 18:01, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's fifth edit. —Korath (Talk) 18:09, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No less deserving of an article than the other MMORPG's. Had this been nominated back in July I would have agreed. Xezbeth 18:00, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Software should be in stable release at minimum. For my two cents, games probably need to be in first version release AND have a substantial following, but that's just IMO. HyperZonk^talk 18:04, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Come back when a full stable version is released. Zzyzx11 19:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not yet notable. Fully concur with HyperZonk. Barno 19:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Betas are not inherently non-notable. ICQ had many many millions of users when it was still a beta. Subject has 81,500 Google hits and plenty of press coverage already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:57, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs expansion. Megan1967 23:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems to be well known- SimonP 01:02, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, games in beta aren't guarenteed release--nixie 02:50, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete until released and significant. All information pre-release is inherently unverifiable. (Okay, that's a sweeping generalization but it's true far more often than not and definitely applies here.) Rossami (talk) 00:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline keep - reads like an ad, but the Google count shows interest - David Gerard 15:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - It's in closed beta, but is still a popular up-and-comer.
  • Only edit by 65.33.200.125. —Korath (Talk) 18:09, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Totally agree with Xezbeth - this title has been in development for over four years - seems silly to delete it when its release is imminent. Orcus 18:00, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Only edit by 80.7.230.156; it was actually at 18:39, Mar 14, 2005. Orcus has two edits, both on May 29, 2003. —Korath (Talk) 18:09, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No less deserving of an article than the other MMORPG's. The game is running a lot better and besides whats that have to do with them wanting to delete the wiki info on it? —MrDDT

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:13, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a vanity page or a fictional character. Either way, I'd say not notable. Deb 17:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Some of this is BJAODN-worthy: "Among this year's projects and drunkenly proclaimed intentions are: An experiment to test the human limit of physical exertion, with his personal participation as the control subject" Delete. Meelar (talk) 18:31, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. Nonsense. Zzyzx11 19:20, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Tygar 19:35, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another one of Hyacinth Bucket's relatives? Nah. My guess is this is a lame attempt at an attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, possible personal attack. Megan1967 23:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Very very funny attack page, but not encyclopedic. Miss Pippa 10:55, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possible BJAODN. Android79 21:58, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Character in a video game, looks like. "He is currently the manager of Charlton Athletic F.C. on Football Manager for PC and Mac platforms." Delete, but I'm down with the BJAODN. Bearcat 07:04, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • A bit of explanation needed here, perhaps. Football Manager is a fantasy football (soccer) game. Whoever plays it plays as the manager of the team of their own chosing. So, unless I'm very badly mistaken on this one, I believe this part of the article to mean that Mark Freeman plays that game, not that he's a fictional character from that game. I am against BJAODN of this article, as I still suspect this to be a personal attack on someone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this nonsense. Edeans 23:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - David Gerard 15:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:12, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable. According to IMDB, had a few bit parts in movies in the mid 1990s and that's it. If we include him, we might as well include extras. :) --Woohookitty 18:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Only had bit parts in three movies. IMDB does not even have his birthdate, his birthplace, a biography, or photos. [14] Zzyzx11 19:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Megan1967 23:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline delete - no info source other than a bad IMDB page - David Gerard 15:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Fair and balanced. —Korath (Talk) 18:15, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

I count two keeps, three merges (including Trödel's incompatible vote), and a delete.

This slogan is not notable enough to have its own article. Trödel|talk 18:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep--slogan is very recognizable, has had controversy and public events attached to it--what more is needed? Solid article. Meelar (talk) 22:31, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Fox News Channel. The slogan is notable, but not outside of Fox News. DaveTheRed 23:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• More to Fair and balanced. Mention Franken book briefly, with links, in moved article. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable in its own right. — Gwalla | Talk 03:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard of it.Mark Richards 11:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Per many of the comments here and on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fair and balanced I have merged all content to Fair and balanced. I now vote Merge and Delete Trödel|talk 03:13, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 16:02, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Disambugation page not needed if no article above. Trödel|talk 18:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Per many of the comments here and on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fair and balanced (marketing slogan) I have merged all content to this page. I now vote Keep Trödel|talk 03:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep controversal phrase which was the central point of a notable (and somewhat amusing) court case. A very solid 446,000 Google hits Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:35, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Suggest that me move Fair and balanced (marketing slogan) to Fair and balanced. This content is duplicated there in a more effective manner. Meelar (talk) 22:30, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• I personally think the slogan should be merged with Fox News Channel. But if we do keep, we don't need a disambig page. If we decide to keep, then I concur with Meelar. DaveTheRed 23:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. More explicitly: the content in Fair and balanced and Fair and balanced (marketing slogan) should be kept. The entry Fair and balanced should be kept, because it has become a well-known catchphrase. The entry Fair and balanced (marketing slogan) is useless, but redirects are cheap and it might be too much trouble to stay GFDL-kosher if it's delete. What stuff should go under what heading, I don't really care. I'm generally mergist. There's plenty of "room" in the Fox News Channel article. However, there's enough material in Fair and balanced (marketing slogan) to be an article all by itself. So I guess my vote amounts to "keep everything and shuffle the contents around as desired." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur completely. Keep-- Jmabel | Talk 23:26, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and do not merge. ComCat 02:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Neutral on a possible merge. -Sean Curtin 02:48, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but delink Fair and balanced (marketing slogan). — Gwalla | Talk 03:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten; the disambig wasn't really necessary. Bearcat 06:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Binadot 20:10, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to FOX News. This would be better discussed in context. Rossami (talk) 00:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge the info? The redirect could be seen as POV - David Gerard 15:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, no merge - David Gerard 15:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Do not merge, article is important in and of itself. --Oarias 00:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 18:18, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Vanity article Non-notable. Delete. --Spinboy 20:10, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First nomination for vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Star Wars MUSH/first nomination

• Delete. Advertising. 24 players online as of right now. Notable MU*'s—and there are very few—don't need to advertise for players on Wikipedia. —Korath (Talk) 20:25, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 23:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would have hoped that would have been done by now, since this is the second listing on vfd. --Spinboy 00:22, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Yes, but the first VfD was barely 2 weeks ago. [15] As VfD is not designed to be utilized as a cleanup tool, keep for now and allow for furthered organic growth and expansion. --GRider\^talk 00:29, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The last VfD for this was two weeks ago! Unlist from VfD. -Sean Curtin 01:36, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps "no consensus" means something different for you than it does for everyone else. —Korath (Talk) 09:21, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • This should have probably been a continuation of the old VfD rather than an entirely new one. Delete, again. -Sean Curtin 02:36, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree, but it was recommended we restart vfd. --Spinboy 02:42, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep for expansion. <POV> For some reason, I'm interested in this now. </POV> -- Riffsyphon1024 09:28, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though needs MAJOR work. Other MUSH'es are listed in Wikipedia and if it can be verified that this was the first of its kind, then it's OK by me. Too bad the title sounds like porridge. ;) 23skidoo 05:53, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it needs work though. Mark Richards 11:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it survived two weeks ago, so the renomination may seem to encourage querulous renomination - David Gerard 15:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a renomination, it's a relisting because there was no consensus on the first one. There is ample precedent for relisting a VfD with no clear consensus. On the original nomination, I count 5 deletes and 3 keeps. Hiding the old discussion isn't particularly useful though. Radiant! 17:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Since this is a continuation, the old votes should still stand... Spinboy: Delete, Korath: Delete (revoted above), Ellsworth: Delete, Oarias: Keep, BM: Delete, Sean Curtin: Delete (revoted above), Radiant: Keep, Megan1967: Keep (revoted above).

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Really really specific not so useful list. --Conti|✉ 20:26, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• You must be joking. In case you are being serious, please refer me to the passage in Wikipedia:Deletion policy where it says that "really really specific not so useful lists" are to be deleted. Keep. <KF> 20:41, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC) (See also talk.)
• Keep, but needs some working on it. The characters are notable, the article is encyclopaedic, it makes sense, and, also, it's a stub that can be expanded --Neigel von Teighen 21:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, looks good to me. DaveTheRed 23:33, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, needs expansion. Perhaps adding in some protagonist analysis for each film listed would be helpful. Megan1967 23:57, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Really really specific lists are the best kind :) Kappa 01:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. ComCat 02:34, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merged lists are better than individual articles for this sort of thing. But, like Megan said, it needs expansion and analysis. Miss Pippa 10:58, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though I'd like a slightly more concise title if possible. Radiant! 16:41, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Does the latest addition ({{vfd-list}}) mean that Conti and SimonP are one and the same person ("The nominator asserts ...")? <KF> 19:52, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but it needs expansion, an introduction, and a better title. 23skidoo 05:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though the article needs further annotation - David Gerard 15:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was REDIRECT to James P. Kem as a common misspelling. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 04:11, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, duplicate. Correctly-spelled article already exists at James P. Kem, with the exact same text, plus a picture. Oddly enough, only the title of this article gets the name wrong. Android79 20:48, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, duplicate/redundant article. Megan1967 00:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• U.S. Senate election, 1952 links to both the correctly spelled name (in the chart) and this one (in the top blurb). Several other articles link to "Kem"; no other article links to "Kern". I bet what actually happened is that the spelling error was made in the body of that article and somebody created a new article from the misspelled redlink without noticing that it was misspelled (or just doesn't know how to create a redirect). Delete. I fixed the misspelled link. Bearcat 06:33, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • That suggests this should be a redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 15:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to correct spelling to discourage recreation, further OCR errors, etc - David Gerard 15:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 18:37, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Francisco Javier Solana (history · watch)

Francisco Javier Solana Madariaga (history · watch)

Javier Solana (history · watch)

Javier Solana Madariaga (history · watch)

Solana (history · watch)

Anyone wishing to add these pages to their watchlist, just click on the "watch" links above. -- Curps 00:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both this site and Francisco Javier Solana Madariaga should be speedily deleted. They were created as vandalism in order to portray Javier Solana as the Beast, and have since been re-used in order to target Solana. The redirect serves no purpose other than to set up a target for further vandalism. This subtle vandalism needs to be stopped now. --SqueakBox 20:48, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect. The vandalism/edit wars won't go away if you'll leave it as a blank article and probably would make it more easier for anyone new to Wikipedia to do so. Megan1967 00:06, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect. It's a perfectly valid redirect, regardless of the original creator's motives for creating the page. Note also longstanding redirect at Javier Solana Madariaga, not created by the same user. -- Curps 00:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (proposer). It may be valid but it is unnecessary, and needs policing continuously. Solana was left in a vandalised state (fixed older version) without being noticed asnd reverted until I discovered it this morning. All 3 redirects are vulnerable. While Solana is necessary as common usage. I don't believe anyone is going to search for either Francisco Javier Solana or Francisco Javier Solana Madariaga. Neither of these terms are common use. The only reason they should be on wikipedia are if they are common usage, and Solana was set up by a legitimate source. Neither of these names would be on here were it not to facilitate vandalism. Leaving them here is purely an encouragement for the offender(s) to do it again. We can only speculate how many readers typed in Solana and unknowingly read and outdated and possibly doctored version. So I hope those who say keep these not common usage terms are always willing to police this. --SqueakBox 01:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect and protect if necessary.-gadfium 01:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Potentially useful redirect. Preoctect if necessary. Miss Pippa 11:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would support if these pages could be permanently protected--SqueakBox 01:06, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the article and disambig page, keep and protect the redirects --Carnildo 20:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 18:37, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Francisco Javier Solana (history · watch)

Francisco Javier Solana Madariaga (history · watch)

Javier Solana (history · watch)

Javier Solana Madariaga (history · watch)

Solana (history · watch)

Anyone wishing to add these pages to their watchlist, just click on the "watch" links above. -- Curps 00:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both this site and Francisco Javier Solana should be speedily deleted. They were created as vandalism in order to portray Javier Solana as the Beast, and have since been re-used in order to target Solana. The redirect serves no purpose other than to set up a target for further vandalism. This subtle vandalism need st be stopped now. --SqueakBox 20:48, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as redirect. The vandalism/edit wars won't go away if you'll leave it as a blank article and probably would make it more easier for anyone new to Wikipedia to do so. Megan1967 00:10, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect. It's a perfectly valid redirect, regardless of the original creator's motives for creating the page. Note also longstanding redirect at Javier Solana Madariaga, not created by the same user. -- Curps 00:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as redirect if this is indeed his correct full name. We may need to protect it.-gadfium 01:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (proposer). It may be valid but it is unnecessary, and needs policing continuously. Solana was left in a vandalised state (fixed older version) without being noticed asnd reverted until I discovered it this morning. All 3 redirects are vulnerable. While Solana is necessary as common usage. I don't believe anyone is going to search for either Francisco Javier Solana or Francisco Javier Solana Madariaga. Neither of these terms are common use. The only reason they should be on wikipedia are if they are common usage, and Solana was set up by a legitimate source. Neither of these names would be on here were it not to facilitate vandalism. Leaving them here is purely an encouragement for the offender(s) to do it again. We can only speculate how many readers typed in Solana and unknowingly read and outdated and possibly doctored version. So I hope those who say keep these not common usage terms are always willing to police this. --SqueakBox 01:04, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I would support if the pages were permanently protected--SqueakBox 01:04, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 02:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete the reason is Non-Notable, also Vanity Page, article created by user 63.164.145.161 for self-promotion, no credible(or any real) reference sources even exist on subject Classicjupiter2 20:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• On what basis do you (seemingly) allege that 63.164.145.161 is part of this group? I haven't even seen this asserted. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Over 1,000 google hits, and likely listed in "retaliation" for listing of Keith Wigdor article here above. (Though I'm almost tempted to support blanket deletion of any and all mention of people, groups, and things associated with Surrealism since 1950, as that would no doubt do much to lessen the number of edit wars and hissy-fits on Wikipedia. <-- note: that comment is a joke, but not much of one.) -- Infrogmation 22:22, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 1,000 google hits nets rather small in my opinion.I will research more before placing my vote.gmonkai.
  • A search for "Portland Surrealist Group" -wikipedia -encyclopedia -dictionary to filter out mirrors finds 177. Of those, only 43 are displayed (including at least one more mirror that I noticed). —Korath (Talk) 23:05, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: Why did you exclude encyclopedia and dictionary from your search? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • To filter out the (many, many) mirrors that don't mention Wikipedia by name. —Korath (Talk) 19:28, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep named groups that have produced results, if the results can be described. Thus, delete all garage bands that haven't recorded. --Wetman 23:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just under the bar of notability, website promo. Megan1967 00:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. This is a group that i've never heard of in Portland before. And I've been here longer than they have. Tygar 03:44, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, vanity. DaveTheRed 19:16, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete,I cannot find anything on them from a literary critic or a literary review.gmonkai 20:45, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC).
  • As they have nothing to do with literature, this wouldn't be suprising. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Noted Dan. At the very bottom of the article page it states that this is a, "literature related article", and since you admit that this non-notable group has nothing to do with literature, all the more reason to delete this article.Classicjupiter2 19:15, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Deleted "literature-related" tag to tear down this straw man. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Dan, your, "straw man" statement and removal of tag does not hide the fact that your friends are extremely non-notable. Why didn't you remove the, "literature-related" tag when your friend's article was placed on here in the first place? Again,all the more reason to delete.Classicjupiter2 16:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Classicjupiter2, your saying this page is vanity is without any basis whatsoever. Why do you believe 63.164.145.161 to be a member of this group? Until you can give any justification, the article shouldn't even be on VfD. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Dan, why do you appear to be so worried over this article? How does this article being placed on VfD affect you? Why do you even care? Dan, please look at the facts. This is clearly a non-notable group, the article was created by an Anon who is a member of the group.
    • Again, what is your basis for this assertion? You have none. Therefore, this article should be removed from VfD until such time as an actual basis for listing it here is come up with. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You have nothing to do with this group, so why do you care about the article being deleted? Would the real reason why you care so much is that these people are your friends and you are using Wikipedia as a soapbox and a cheap means of promotion to broadcast your statements and beliefs?Classicjupiter2 21:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not a question whether I care or not, and listing it on VfD is a solicitation to anyone who reads it to state whether they believe it should be deleted, in their view. Whether they care, how much they care, is irrelevant. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Dan, you just stated, "its not a question whether I care or not" so since you just made that statement then you should not be concerned with the article being VfD, unless these people are your friends as well as the Anon who created the article to promote this non-notable group. Dan, are these people your friends?Classicjupiter2 21:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable --Neigel von Teighen 20:47, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I am sorely tempted to vote "keep" just because of Classicjupiter2's badgering. Unfortunately, I can't find enough evidence that this group is yet significant enough that we can write a verifiable non-stub article. Reluctant delete. Rossami (talk) 01:07, 9 Mar 2005
• Delete - looks like a vanity article at Wikipedia supported by a vanity article at Portland Indymedia - David Gerard 15:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• • Daniel!!! Do not remove the VfD tag!!!Classicjupiter2 17:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• My sincere apology to Daniel, it was user 65 that removed the VfD tag, and then later user 141.Classicjupiter2 20:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete despite Classicjupiter2's taking this all way too personally. Not notable, advert. --InShaneee 02:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: has anyone else checked User:Classicjupiter2's user contributions list? His/her very first act was to start posting surrealist articles on vfd, and Classicjupiter2 has made no further contributions beyond these vfd postings. Kim Bruning 01:07, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, Kim. My user contributions is public domain and most likely fellow Wikipedians are very much aware of my edits, VfD's, etc. I am contemplating creating an article on Henley's 222 Radio Circuit Design but I am having trouble with the research. Anyway, we need to stay on topic, here. Now, are you going to place your vote?Classicjupiter2 21:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a vanity article (as defined by Wikipedia usage, not the OED). --Calton | Talk 00:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Postdlf 17:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 18:41, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously the page title has a typo (my fault. sorry!). The page was moved and all the references to this page are corrected. Please delete it to save more little space. --Minghong 21:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please use {{delete}} (see Wikipedia:speedy deletions) or list to Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion when you want to delete a redirect. This was the simple case without history, so I have already speedily deleted it. jni 21:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus; thus, the article is kept. —Korath (Talk) 18:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Un-encyclopaedic. --Neigel von Teighen 21:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep — Term widely used, including a Linux Distro. — RJH 00:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This article is a discussion of the origins and meaning of a phrase. That's a dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Transwiki to Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 01:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — This entry not only describes the meaning of the phrase but also details the usage and origin, which are beyond the scope of most dictionaries. There is also some hint of the social forces driving the development of language although this may, or may not, be expanded upon. The item is no less worthy of inclusion than the referenced definition of 'creeping featurism'. User:MNH 10:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edits are to this vfd. —Korath (Talk) 18:50, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I respectfully disagree. Usage and origin or the word or phrase are exactly what I would expect to find in a really good, unabridged dictionary. Rossami (talk)
• Keep, real term, article goes beyond dicdef - David Gerard 15:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 02:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Previously VfD'd in August 2004. Has been recreated independently many times since then; these appear to be genuine re-creations and not re-creation vandalism. Has been repeatedly speedy-deleted as "deleteagain" of previously VfD'd, but perhaps enough time has passed to re-examine the issue. If GNAA is worthy of inclusion, then perhaps myg0t is also worthy. No vote. -- Curps 21:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A (non-duplicate) page Mygot has now been created, and should be considered along with this page. sjorford →•← 17:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Speedy as re-creation of validly VfDed article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:12, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Again. -Sean Curtin
• Keep. Rhobite 20:59, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • These guys are very well-known (and hated) by gamers. They should be represented here.. who cares about the results of previous VfD debates? 50,000 Google hits. Rhobite 21:25, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and it really should be speedied. Xezbeth 21:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Xezbeth --Neigel von Teighen 21:05, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and consider potential ways to block its subsequent recreation. (I did once try making the title a redirect to What Wikipedia is not as a really stupid experiment; needless to say, it lasted barely a few minutes before another admin deleted it.) Bearcat 06:19, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd never thought I would be defending an article about this group, as they truly are a sad bunch, but they do have gained notability (notoriety?) in the online gaming scene as one of the more extreme and persistent examples of a cheating, harrassment and trolling "clan". They also have been going for years now, so it's not a one-hit wonder. And finally, from the Wikipedia:Deletion policy: If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this should be seen as evidence for the need for an article. Administrators should always be responsible with the power that they have. If in doubt... don't delete!. --Plek 11:12, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Anyone who uses wikipedia uses the internet. A fair percentage of them have been affected by myg0t in one way or another, especially those who game. There is no reason to take this def off.

Unsigned vote by 65.41.21.212 (talk · contributions). User's second edit. --Plek 05:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...and 65.41.21.212's other edit was adding a Myg0t term to Internet slang. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Unless shown notability, delete. - Mike Rosoft 23:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An interesting group. The Recycling Troll 23:06, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No more notable now than they were than before. Should be speedy deleted as a recreation of a previously VfD'd article. RickK 00:45, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

  I myself speedy-deleted it once before as a re-creation. However, there appear to have been multiple independent re-creations (if you look at the previously deleted versions, each has a fairly different wording and writing style), by people apparently unaware of the previous VfD's and speedy deletions. So I erred on the side of caution and renominated for VfD instead of speedying. In effect, this could be considered a Vote_for_undeletion, except with the twist that the article currently exists since someone re-created it. Plek makes an interesting point citing Wikipedia:Deletion policy... I wasn't aware of this earlier. -- Curps 01:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Just a note that if this is kept, someone is going to need to watch it constantly since it'll be a big target for vandalism and POV edits. It may be a good idea to think of a possible Merge and Redirect with a related article.--Paul Soth 01:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, again. Nastiness does not equate to non-noteworthiness. Denni☯ 02:35, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete. Trollvertisement. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:00, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Probable vanity, as Xdavexxx hasn't edited anything besides the article. Doesn't seem like much can be said about the subject. Delete. --Slowking Man 06:43, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep --SPUI (talk) 06:46, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Don't need an article for every group of bored teenagers. ✏ OvenFresh² 02:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 21:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep myg0t are significant, I myself used Wiki to try and find who they are. Article needs a rewrite though. --Intimidated 02:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and protect against recreation; trollvertisement. —Korath (Talk) 18:54, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 19:04, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Advertisement for a non-notable project that gets 4 google hits. Meelar (talk) 23:46, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 00:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article doesn't even pretend not to be an ad. (I removed the external link, by the way. Wikispam from another wiki. Truly a sad day.) —Korath (Talk) 00:09, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and delete - David Gerard 15:39, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.